MANGARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 28.7.94 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 27 of 93 (23/93), whereby he ordered for framing charge against the accused petitioner Manga Ram for the offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC.

(2.) In this case, the FIR was lodged by Bhanwarlal, elder brother of deceased Thana Ram alleging that on 12.1.93 at about 6 PM, co-accused Jora Ram Mohan Ram and Durga Ram, who were armed with Knife, axe and lathi respectively, indiscriminately caused injuries to Thana Ram; that he alongwith Adu Ram recued him and that thereupon accused persons fled away. He further alleged that while he alongwith Adu Ram was taking Thana Ram, to his house, the latter succumbed to his injuries on the way. He also informed that at the time of the alleged occurrence, Magga Ram Bawri and a lady, vegetable vendor, were also present there. Thereupon, a case against Jora Ram Mohan Ram and Durga Ram was registered for the offences under sections 302/34 and 341 IPC. The alleged eye witnesses 'Bhanwarlal and Adu Ram in their statements under Sec. 161 Cr.PC have neither named the petitioner nor imputed any allegation against him. Smt. Sunderi Bawri, who was selling the vegetables, has stated that Thana Ram had purchased one kilogram 'Shakkarkandi' from her and that when she demanded the price thereof, Thana Ram expressed his unability to pay that amount; that thereupon petitioner Manga Ram caught hold of the blanket of Thana Ram and asked him to pay the amount; that thereafter accused Jora Ram came and inflicted injuries to Thana Ram. Smt. Gitudi, who is daughter-in-law of Sunderi Bawri, has not even named the petitioner and stated that only Jora Ram had inflicted injuries to the deceased. Smt. Mohni has supported the statement of Smt. Sunderi Bawri. The other alleged eye witness Kumari Santu has simply stated that Jora Ram had inflicted injuries.

(3.) She has can not stated anything about the presence of the petitioner. The I.O. has examined another set of witnesses namely Nanu Ram and Champalal, who have stated that they had seen Adu Ram and informant Bhanwaru Ram along with two-three other persons talking Thana Ram, who was bleeding and that at that time, deceased Thana Ram informed that Jora Ram had caused injuries to him and that petitioner Manga Ram had caught hold of him but Adu Ram and Bhanwaru Ram have not stated anything about the dying declaration of the deceased. It appears that the I.O. has recorded the statements of the defence witnesses, who have given bilateral and inconsistent account of the occurrence. The statement of Nanu Ram s/o Ghasi Ram and Champalal have been recorded on 1.2.93, while occurrence took place on 12.1.93. Apart from it, from the evidence collected by the I.O., it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that petitioner Manga Ram had a pre-meeting of mind with co-accused Jora Ram or that he had any common on intention to commit the murder of deceased. As a matter of fact, keeping in view the inconsistent statements of the witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 space, even the presence of petitioner Hanga Ram does not stand established nor petitioner's name finds mention in the FIR or in the statements of informant Bhanwarlal and the alleged eye witness Adu Ram. Therefore keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in holding that prima facie, an offence under Sec. 302/34 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the learned trial Judge by his impugned order has discharged the accused petitioner for the offence under sections 341 and 120-B IPC.