CHHITANYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR appellants, along with co-accused Prakashi who died during trial, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 195/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated November 23, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Atar Singh: U/s. 302 IPC : To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 307 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 147 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 341 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Jal Singh: U/s. 302/149 IPC. To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 307 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 147 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 341 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Chhitariya and Mahaveer : U/s. 302/149 IPC. Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 307/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. U/s. 147 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s. 323 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s. 341 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story on April 19, 1997 at 1. 30 PM the informant Nivori (PW-2) submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Roopwas stating therein that in the preceding night around 8-9 PM while Banwari, his wife Angoori (now deceased), Ranjeet and Bhagwan Dei were coming to the filed they were belaboured by Chhitariya, Atar Singh, Jal Singh and Prakashi on the road. On being exhorted by Prakashi to kill the enemies, Atar Singh opened fire with katta, pellets of which hit the neck of Angoori, who died on the spot. fire opened by Jal Singh hit the left shoulder of Ranjeet. Atar Singh's second fire hit he right hand of Banwari, who also sustained lathi blow inflicted by Mahaveer on his head. Hearing hue and cry when the informant, Kalua, Bhagwan Singh, Mst. Kallo, Udai Singh and mst. Kaila intervened, they were also beaten up. On that report case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 307 and 341 IPC was registered and investigation commenced and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 307, 307/149, 302 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness was however examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IN support of his submissions learned counsel placed reliance on State of M. P. Vs. Mishrilal (2003 Cr. L. R. (SC) 425), wherein the Apex Court observed as under:- " there is no explanation about the injuries sustained by the three accused. None of the prosecution witnesses explained the injuries sustained by the accused. The injuries sustained by Mishrilal were dangerous to life. The prosecution witnesses consists of interested and inimical witnesses. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has not presented the true version on most material part of the story. Their evidential value does not inspire confidence and it cannot be accepted on its face value and relied upon. It is in these circumstances that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused proved fatal to the prosecution case. "