DOLIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31-7-86, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, for the offence under Section 302, alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-10-83, Smt. Kesi w/o Samida had gone to graze her she goats in the jungle. Samida had gone to jungle to call her back and while he was going to bring his wife back, the accused-appellants, at about 7.00 p.m. met him in the way. Accused Bhuriya was armed with a Kulhari, accused Dolia and Lachha were armed with Lathis. Accused Bhuria inflicted Kulhari blow on the head of Samida and on receiving this blow he fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused Dolia and Laccha inflicted injuries with Lathis to Samida. Samida cried, "Maare Re Maare Re" and on hearing his cries, Lakha and Moti went to the place of the occurrence. On seeing, them coming, accused Dolia, Lachha and Bhuria ran away. The accused murdered Samida on account of the fact that the jewelleries of Samida's wife were stolen by the wife of accused Lachha and a Panchayat has held and the Panchayat imposed the penalty of Rs. 100.00 on accused Lachha. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The accused, in their defence, examined two witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 30-7-86, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants that the appellants have preferred these three separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentence.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable one and the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not find corroboration from the medical evidence as there was no Lathi injury on the deadbody of Samida and the bruises could be caused by a fall on the ground, as is opined by the doctor. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Malkhana Incharge of the Police Station concerned has not been produced and, therefore, the evidence regarding the recoveries of the alleged incriminating articles cannot be read against the accused-appellants. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below.