BIHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has been preferred by three accused appellants against the judgment dated 9th October 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar in Sessions Case No. 8/2001 thereby convicting accused Bihari Lal for offence under Section 302 IPC and accused Jaisa Ram and Sagarmal for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Accused Bihari Lal and all the accused were also convicted for offence under Section 447 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, were required to further undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. Additionally, accused Sagarmal was convicted under Section 325 IPC whereas accused Jaisa Ram and Bihari Lal were convicted for offence under Section 325/34 IPC and for this all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment to one year with fine of Rs. 200/- in default thereof, were required to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 day.

(2.) A written report was submitted by one Thakru Ram S/o Pura Ram by Caste Jat resident of Charno Ki Dhani, village-Sutot Police Station Nechhwa, District Sikar. In the report it was alleged that the complainant were six brothers. While the complainant and his brother were residing in the "dhani", the wife of his younger brother was residing at the well situated in their agricultural field. When the complainant was harvesting the crop of `mothh and Choula', in the morning on 23rd October 2000, Tara Chand along with two other boys, whose names were not present, came there on a camel cart and tried to pass through their agricultural field. The complainant asked them not to do so as it was not a public way. Suddenly at that time Bihari, Sagarmal, Jaisa Ram, Chunnilal and Soni all armed with Lathi, Gandasi and Kulhari etc. came there. Accused Sagarmal inflicted a lathi blow on complainant Thakru Ram when he tried to save himself using his hands, accused Jaisa Ram caught his hands. On hearing hue and cry Ganesh Ram, the younger brother of the complainant, who was cultivating his adjoining field, came rushing there to save him. Accused Bihari inflicted a `jeli' blow on the head of Ganesh Ram presently he became unconscious and fell down. Tara Chand inflicted a lathi blow which the complainant received on his hand. The complainant also became unconscious and fell down on the ground. It was further stated that after complainant and his brother Ganesh Ram fell down on the ground having become unconscious which of the accused inflicted what injuries could not be known to both of them. After some time when the complainant regained consciousness, Chhunni Lal, Sukhdeva, and his brother Ganesh Ram were standing by his side. Ganesh Ram however regained consciousness and upon checking, it transpired that he had stopped breathing and had expired. The accused persons had come to the agricultural field of the complainant and attacked them. There was a dispute between the two parties about the right of way. The complainant has requested to the SHO that the action be taken against the accused for the murder of his brother.

(3.) SHRI Anoop Dhand argued that Ganpat Ram and Narayan Singh were the motbir witnesses to the site plan who could be the best witnesses to depose the truth about the place of incident yet they have not been placed before the trial Court. Their non- production creates a serious doubt about the correctness of prosecution version. He argued that the alleged eye-witnesses have substantially improved upon their original version inasmuch as in their first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , they have not named the accused appellants Sagarmal and Jaisa Ram. They have however, in the second statement (Titmba Bayan) implicated these two accused also. It has been argued that no external injury was shown on the person of deceased while preparing Panchnama, although the post mortem report has indicated one bruise on his body. Alternatively SHRI Anoop Dhand also argued that even as per the prosecution the quarrel of the accused started with the complainant Thakru Ram and deceased Ganesh Ram came there subsequently to intervene and in the process received fatal injury. The accused had no intention or motive of causing his death. No such intention therefore, can be attributed to the accused appellant. This is further established from the statement of PW. 5 Chhoti Devi wherein she has stated the Jeli was used by the Accused from the reverse side. He has further argued that while PW. 6 Sukhdeva Ram has claimed himself to be an eye witness but in his own statement he stated that he along with Chhunni Lal and wife of Ganesh Ram arrived at the place of incident after occurrence. None of them were eye witnesses of the alleged incident.