KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused appellants have challenged the judgment dated 16. 4. 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi, whereby they have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and to further undergo a sentence of one year simple imprisonment, in default thereof.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the prosecution are that on 19. 2. 2000 Kanhaiya Lal, (PW. 1) lodged a written report (Ex. P. 1), at Police Station Kapren, wherein he claimed that he is resident of Village Bahadawali. On 18. 2. 2000 his son Siyaram, age 27 years, had gone to the house of Shri Kishan Gurjar at Ghat Ka Barana for taking part in a local feast. Kaluram and Jugraj had also gone with him. He further claimed that in the night around about 12 O' clock, Kishan Gopal, S/o Shri Hiralal Gurjar, resident of Laban, came to his village and informed him that Siyaram was assaulted by Kanhaiya Lal (appellant No. 1) and his son Babulal (appellant No. 2) with `lathis'. He also informed him that Siyaram is lying unconscious. He immediately went to Ghat Ka Barana and saw his son. His son was bleeding from his head and was breathing slowly. He further alleged that he and the villagers placed his son in a jeep and took him to the hospital at Kapren. However, on the way his son expired. He further alleged in the written report that there is an animosity in between his son and Kanhaiya Lal's brother Prabhulal. It is for this reason that Kanhaiya Lal and his son Babulal had assaulted his son. Lastly, he alleged that Kalulal Gurjar and Ram Lal Meena are the eyewitnesses of this incident.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, Kaluram (PW. 9) is the star witness of the prosecution. However, his testimony is most vague and full of contractions. In his examination-in-chief, he claimed that after feasting, Siyaram, Jugraj and he were roaming in the Village when Kanhaiya Lal, the appellant No. 1, called them. He further stated that Kanhaiya Lal and Babulal hit Siyaram with Lathi. However, he neither describes the place of injury nor the number of times the deceased was hit with a Lathi. It is very surprising that the person who claims to be an eye witness has not described the incident in any great detail. He neither tells us about the place of the incident, nor the manner of assault, nor the reaction of the injured, nor about the number of injuries sustained by the deceased, nor about the sequences of the assault. Such a vague statement casts a doubt on the veracity of the testimony. His testimony is further weakened by the fact that it is replete with contradictions from his earlier statement given under Section 161 Cr. P. C. His statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. has been marked as Ex. D. 5. According to his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , there was some altercation, which had taken place between Siyaram and the appellant No. 1 at the feast. However, in his testimony, he denied this fact. In his statement, he claimed that because of the altercation, they were leaving the place of the feast and Kanhaiya Lal followed them. But in his testimony, he denied this fact and claimed that Kanhaiya Lal had called the deceased. Although in his statement, he does not name Jugraj as being with them at the time of incident, yet in his testimony, he claimed that he had informed the police about this fact. Similarly, on other points, he denied the statement given by him to the police. These contradictions were specifically pointed out to him in his cross-examination, but they have not been explained by him. His only explanation is that he has told the police, but the fact has not been recorded in his statement. Because of the general, non- specific, ombudsman like nature of his testimony, because of contradictory stand taken by the witness, we are not inclined to believe this witness.