RAJU ALIAS RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU @ Raj Kumar and Khuma Ram, the appellants in these two appeals, and eleven others were found involved in the incident that occurred on November 25, 1998. Since appellant Khuma Ram absconded, appellant RAJU and others were tried in Sessions Case No. 34/1999 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar. After appellant Khuma Ram surrendered, he was also tried in Sessions Case No. 33/2002 (34/1999 ). Learned trial Judge vide judgments dated January 04, 2001 and March 15, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants RAJU @ Raj Kumar and Khuma Ram as under:- RAJU @ Rajkumar: u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 323/149 IPC: Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 147 IPC: Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. u/s. 3/27 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Khuma Ram: u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 323/149 IPC: Fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 147 IPC: Fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment. u/s. 3/27 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on November 25, 1998 appellants Rajkumar and Khuma Ram along with co-accused persons came in two-three jeeps at the house of the complainant party and started hurling stones. Pooran Mal, Mohan Lal and others came to save them. Then Raj Kumar entered in the house of Shanker Lal (father of Raj Kumar) and brought a gun and opened two fires, one of which hit Pooran Mal. Khuma Ram then snatched the gun from Raj Kumar and opened fire which hit Mohan Lal. The injured persons were removed to the hospital. When SHO Laxmangarh reached to the spot; written report (Ex. P. 1) was handed over to him by Chothu Ram and Shyam Lal. Case under Sections 147, 148, 448, 307, 323 and 336 IPC was registered. After Puran Mal and Mohan Lal succumbed to injuries Section 302 was added. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against Raj Kumar and co- accused persons. In due course the case came up for trial. In both the trials against the appellants charges under Sections 302, 302/149, 323/149, 448, 147 IPC and 3/25 and 3/27 Arms Act were framed, who denied the charges and claimed trial. Eye witnesses viz. Chothu Ram, Bheru Ram Munidhar, Bidami, Shyam Lal, Sanwar Mal, Raghunath and Rameshwar Lal were examined by the prosecution. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants canvassed that none of the so called eight eye witnesses, produced by the prosecution, have made true version. The have conspired to implicate the appellants falsely. Every one of them has freely indulged in making material improvements upon earlier version. There are intra contradictions on material aspects in the statements of eye witnesses. Version set out by them suffers from glaring improbabilities. None of them should have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. Ocular testimony stands falsified by scientifically acclaimed principles of ballistic science. The eye witnesses have willfully changed the place of occurrence. In fact the complainant party was aggressor and the accused party acted in self defence. No one from the neighbourhood was examined by the prosecution and only interested witnesses and partisan witnesses were produced. The trial judge failed to appreciate the inter play of issue estopple and the same resulted in gross failure of justice. Neither the genesis nor motive has been spelt out. Appellants had no motive to commit murder of Mohan and Puran Mal. The trial Judge failed to consider the effect of mis-joinder of charges. No recovery of gun, cartridge or empty was made from the appellant Khuma Ram. The investigation was not fair and it was partisan. In fact it was a case of single fire and the medical witness admits this possibility. The appellants have been implicated because of political affiliation.