SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all the three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31. 5. 1984 in one Sessions case No. 25/81 (29/81), they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants were tried for offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323 IPC and at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentence them in the following manner : Appellants Shyam Sunder @ Munna Under Sec. 307/149 Five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Appellants Surendera @ Pappi, Surendra @ Guddu, Shyam, Anil Kumar and Mahesh Chandra: Under Section 307/149 Three years Rigorous' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. , in default thereof, to under to two months rigorous imprisonment. All the appellants Under Section 147 IPc One year's rigorous imprisonment Appellant Shyam Sunder @ Munna Under Section 148 IPc Two years' rigorous imprisonment Appellant Shyam Sunder @ Munna Under Section 324 IPc Two years' rigorous imprisonment Appellants Surendra @ Pappi, Shyam, Anil Kumar, Mahesh Chand and Surendra @ Guddu Under Section 324/149 IPc One year's simple imprisonment Appellant Anil Kumar and Mahesh Chand Under Section 323 IPc Six months' simple imprisonment Appellants Shyam Sunder @ Munna, Surendra @ Pappi, Shyam, and Surendra @ Guddu Under Section 323/149 IPc Two months' simple imprisonment

(3.) I find force with the above argument. It is true that name of appellant Surendra @ Pappi does not find place in the written report Ex. P. 12, lodged by PW12 Umesh Chand, upon which regular FIR, Ex. P13 was registered and it contains the names of the accused and the manner in which the incident took place. That apart, PW11 injured Roshan Singh has merely stated about the presence of Surendra at the place of incident. At the end of cross examination, this witness has admitted that appellant Surendra did not assault him. He further stated that he cannot say whether Surendra was with the interveners or was a member of the team which assaulted him. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellant Surendra @ Pappi cannot be sustained and he is entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged with.