TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-9-1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused-ap pellant Tej Singh for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence un der Section 302, I.P.C. and six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and directed that both the substantive sen tences shall run concurrently. He, also, convicted accused Kesar Singh for the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo impris onment for life and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Appellants Tej Singh and Kesar Singh were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 342/34 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 26-11-1985, at about 11.00/11.30 p.m., some boys were playing Kabbadi in a lane situated in between the shops of Ahmed Bhai, Jeewa Ram and Sher Khan, in village Aamli. Raghunth, along with Karma Ram, Megha Ram, Chela Ram Meena, informant Kesa Ram and Panna Ram, were, also, sitting on a Chabutari. Informant Kesa Ram left the place and came to his house. After he came to his house, accused Tej Singh and Kesar Singh came there and some altercations took place between them and Raghunath. Accused Tej Singh caught-hold of Raghunath, felled him on the ground and sat on his chest and accused Kesar Singh caught hold of the hand of deceased Raghunath and thereafter accused Tej Singh cut the throat of Raghunath. Sangram raised an alarm "come out-side, come out-side father has been killed," whereupon Kesa Ram came out of the house and by that time the accused had run away. Raghunath was being brought to the house on a cot but he succumbed to the injury in the way. This incident was witnessed by Kapoora Ram, Jeewa Ram, Kesa Ram, Lasa Ram and Mangi Lal. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty witnesses. Dhanna Ram, who is the son of deceased Raghunath, was, also, an eye-witness but as he was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, he was called and examined as a Court Witness by the learned trial Court and his statement was recorded as PW 21. The accused, in their defence, examined five witnesses. The case of the accused, in defence, was that at about 10.00 p.m. Kesar Singh was coming from his well; in the way when he reached in front of the house of Raghunath, he found Raghunath stand ing in front of his house; Raghunath abused him and asked why he had threatened his son and lodged a false report against him, whereupon he was threat ened of the dire consequence; he proceeded towards his house and when he reached near the shop of Ahmed Bhai, Raghunath and Dhanna Ram. came from behind and told him that they would teach him a lesson (Tere Dadagiri Nikal Dete Hain); Idrish and Kalu Singh were sitting in front of the shop of Ahmed Bhai. After three-four minutes somebody hit with a Lathi from behind on his person; Dhanna Ram and some more persons pulled him out from the house and inflicted injuries by a Danda and Lathis; he ran away to save his life and entered the house of Sher Khan; Sher Khan and Shakina saved him and asked Raghunath and other persons not to kill him and they did not permit Dhanna Ram and Raghunath to enter their house; he thereafter left the house of Sher Khan by scaling over the all and he and Tej Singh thereafter went to the Police Station to lodge the report but instead of registering their report, the police arrested them. The learned Additional Ses sions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above, and it is against this judgment dated 21-9-1989 that the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses produced by the pros ecution are wholly unreliable; they have suppressed the genesis of the incident and PW 7 Kesa Ram, who lodged the F.I.R., has given a complete go-by to the version given by him in the F.I.R. lodged by him and the prosecution has developed a new story during the trial and made some improvements in the pros ecution case during trial from the case set-up by the prosecution at the earlier stage. Even as per the case of the prosecution, two different versions have come in the evidence one given by informant Kesa Ram and the other eye witnesses, and the other given by PW 21 Dhanna Ram; and only the relative and interested witnesses of the complainant party supported the prosecution case while the independent witnesses of the area, who were admittedly present even as per the prosecution witnesses too, have not supported the prosecution case. It is further con tended by the learned counsel for the appellants that some of the prosecution witness, who according to PW 7 Kesa Ram, were present at the scene of the occurrence and are independent witnesses, have not been produced by the prosecution and they have been produced by the accused-party and they have supported the defence version. It is further con tended that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellants and the judgment passed by the learned lower Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.