BALWANT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on 21/07/1986 convicting the accused appellants Balwant Ram, Deewan, Kashmir and Dhanna Ram under S. 302 read with S. 34 and S. 323 read with S. 34 of the IPC, and sentencing them of offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC. The accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each in default one year R.I. For the offence under S. 323 read with S. 32, IPC each accused was convicted for R.I. for a period of 1 year and both the sentences were ordered to run concur rently. It is this order of conviction which is chal lenged in the present appeal.

(2.) The prosecution story briefly stated is that in the night of 3/03/1985 at about 9-30 p.m., the accused persons assaulted the deceased Dalipa Ram, his son deceased Ram Kumar and his wife deceased Phooli. The FIR of this occurrence was lodged by P.W. 1 Mani Ram on the next day. After investiga tion the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, they were challenged and prosecuted under S. 302 read with S. 34 and 323 read with S. 34 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution recorded evi dence and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the con clusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC and, therefore, recorded the conviction as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused claimed that in view of admitted rivalry between the accused and the deceased and in view of the fact that the deceased were the assailants, the learned judge erred in convicting them of murder. He submitted, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 1962that in the present case, there is no inquest report and the FIR is lodged after due deliberations belatedly, the incident occurred in the night of 3/03/1985 and the FIR was lodged on the 4/03/1985. However, this judgment of the Supreme Court is of no help to the accused as in the present case the explanation given for delay is plausible and, therefore, acceptable. The decision reported in 1978 Raj LW 340 is to the same effect as the Supreme Court referred to above for the reasons stated above, this also does not help the accused.