LUNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 26. 9. 89 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No. 14/87 convicting the accused appellants of an offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Amarnath and Bajrang Nath. The conviction was u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE appeal was filed by the accused from jail and they were unrepresented. We, therefore, requested Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur, advocate, to assist as Amicus-curiae in this case and defend the accused. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Mehta and Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the accused, we have scrutinized and re-appreciated the evidence on record.

(3.) WE have re-appreciated the evidence on record. PW/1 Lichhma, who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that all the four accused persons came and started assaulting Amarnath and Bajrang Nath and she was injured on arms by Luna Ram. She has then stated that when wife of Bajrang Nath tried to intervene she was chased away by Luna Ram and she went into the Dhani. In her examination- in-chief, she has stated first that she did not give report in the Police Station and then she has stated that she did give the report. In the cross-examination she has, however, stated that Mangilal came on the scene after her sons were killed: ***** Then she has stated that Rukan Nath, PW/14 came about an hour after the incident. She also states that her daughter Godawari, PW/2 had taken the cattle to water and came on the scene after the assault. Then she has stated that when Mangilal came the accused caught hold of hies neck. If the evidence of this witness is scrutinized it will be seen that there are several discrepancies. If she has not lodged the First Information Report, the author of the report obviously would be Mangilal, who in his deposition specifically denies such position. He asserts that it was Lichhma, PW/1, who has lodged the First Information Report. If the testimony of Lichhma is to be accepted, Mangilal, Rukan Nath and Godawari cannot be believed to be eye-witnesses, as according to PW/1 Lichhma, all these persons came on the scene of offence after the assault was over. According to this witness, the only other eye-witness is Sanju, w/o Bajrang Nath, PW/13. In such circumstances, we feel it unsafe to accept the testimony of this witness without adequate corroboration.