SHYOJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE six appellants before us were tried by the Special Judge SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Jhalawar in Sessions case No. 6/1998. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 30, 2003 found the appellants guilty and convicted them as under:- Shyoji, Ramchandra and Mangi Lal: U/s. 147 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-m, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- , in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Amar Lal, Devkishan and Madan Lal: U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for the life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like thus:- On September 19, 1997 at 6. 45 PM Govind Singh Second Officer of Police Station Sangod recorded parcha bayan of Rekhraj (PW. 1), who was admitted in Primary Health Centre Sangod. It was interalia stated in parcha bayan by Rekhraj that in the proceeding night around 9. 30 PM, he along with Dhanraj Meena (now deceased) had gone to village Akodia for watching play of Tejaji Maharaj. after reaching village when they found that the play was cancelled because of rain, they proceeded back to their village. On the way while they were passing through village Sarola around 2. 30 AM. they were encircled near the house of Devkishan by Amarlal, Ramchandra, Madanlal, Devkishan, Kishore, Sheoji, Mangilal, Jagdish and two other persons and informant and Dhanraj were given beating by them with Lathis, Kuntias and Gandasis. Amarlal and Mangilal were instigating all the assailants to kill the informant and Dhanraj and bury them in a pit. As a result of beating Dhanraj died on the spot and informant sustained injuries. On that parcha bayan offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 302/149 IPC and Sec. 3 of SC ST Act, 1989 found to have been committed. Since the incident occurred in the jurisdiction of Police Station Khanpur (District Jhalawar ). parcha bayan was sent to Police Station Khanpur where a case under the aforesaid sections was registered and investigation commenced and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jhalawar. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 307/149, 302, 302/149, 324, 324/149, 120b IPC and Sec. 3 (2) (5) of SC/st (PA) Act, 1989 were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence and stated that it was rainy and dark night and the thieves had made attempt to break the house in the village. Hearing the noise, villagers gathered and gave beating to the thieves. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IN response, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses clearly establish the role played by the appellants and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced.