RAM NARAIN ALIAS SANNU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Narain @ Sannu and Vishram, the appellants herein, along with co-accused RAMji Lal, Jai RAM and Hazari were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Laxmangarh (Alwar), who vide judgment dated July 11, 2002 although acquitted RAMji Lal, Jai RAM and Hazari, convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment.

(2.) A written report (Ex. P-2) was submitted on October 12, 2000 by informant Hans Ram (Pw. 2) at Police Station Khedli with the averments that on the said day around 7 AM while his brother Deviram was returning from the field, he was belaboured and beaten up by Jairam, Ram Narain, Vishram, Ramji Lal and Hazari near boring of Jhandu. Injured Devi Ram was removed to the Hospital. On that report a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. In the hospital Devi Ram succumbed to the injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and necessary memos were drawn. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Laxmangarh (Alwar ). Charge under sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. On hearing final submissions learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Din Dayal Vs. Raj Kumar @ Raju (AIR 1999 SC 537) held as under:- (Para 4) "witness Din Dayal had accompanied the deceased to the hospital but after reaching there he did not disclose the name of the accused to the Police Constable who was on duty even though he disclosed other facts regarding the incident. This circumstance has been relied upon by the High Court together with some other reasons for doubting truthfulness of the evidence of this witness. The High Court has also referred to the improvements made by Din Dayal and those improvements clearly indicate that they were deliberately made with a view to make the presence of other witnesses acceptable. Having gone through the evidence we find that the view taken by the High Court is not unreasonable and no interference is called for by this Court. "