RAKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal appeals have been preferred separately to accused-appellants against judgment and order dated 06.01.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ramganjmandi, District Kota, in Sessions Case No. 05/2007, where under all of them have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Accused-appellants Conviction and Sentence Vijay Singh and Rakesh Under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Under Section 452 IPC - to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Under Section 324 IPC - to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Daya @ Dayanand Under Section 324 r/w Section 120B IPC - to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 302 r/w Section 120B IPC - to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-11) of one Bhupendra Singh was recorded by Mr. Anil Kumar Vishnoi (PW-16), Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Ramganjmandi, on 19.09.2006 at 9.15 PM, wherein he alleged that at about 8.30 PM when he, his father and other female members of the family were in their house, Bahadur Singh Rajawat brought Rakesh, Vijay and Daya on his vehicle to their house. Vijay and Rakesh, who were armed with knives, entered their house with intention to kill him (Bhupendra Singh) and his father and inflicted knife blows to them. When females of the family tried to intervene, they too were subjected to beating. Rakesh, Daya, Vijay and Bahadur Singh, while leaving one motorcycle at the site of occurrence, fled away on another motorcycle. On hearing their hue and cry, Surendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Bharat Singh and other persons arrived at the scene of occurrence and took him (Bhupendra Singh) and his father in a jeep to Government hospital and got them admit. It was alleged that these people had rivalry of disc cable business with them. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a regular F.I.R. No. 197/2006 dated 19.09.2006 for offence under Sections 452, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was chalked out. During the course of treatment, while investigation was pending, injured Pratap Singh succumbed to injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three accused-appellants only. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses and got 29 documents exhibited. Accused-appellants, in their defence, produced 5 witnesses and got 11 documents exhibited. Accused-appellants, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated about their false implication in the matter. Learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence these three separate appeals.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for accused-appellant Vijay Singh, has argued that testimony of prosecution witnesses especially Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), his sister Gayatri (PW-9) and his wife Jyoti Kanwar (PW-10), is not at all reliable inasmuch as their testimony suffers from various contradictions, which are irreconcilable. No other independent witness has support the prosecution case, which is evident from the fact that almost all independent witnesses turned hostile Ranjeet Singh (PW-4) was also not speaking complete truth inasmuch as his statement also suffers from contradictions. He, in initial part of his statement, has alleged that on 19.09.2006 at about 8-8.15 PM, while he was taking his daughter Puja to nurse for treatment, he saw Rakesh and Vijay going on one motorcycle and Daya and Bahadur were on another motorcycle. He further stated that when he came back with his daughter after taking medicines then he saw Daya, Vijay and Rakesh coming out of the house of Pratap Singh and Bahadur was standing outside the house with motorcycle. He further stated that all of them were armed with knives and Pratap was lying outside in the veranda. Learned counsel, referring to statements of PW-8 PW-9 and PW-10, stated that these witnesses, who claimed to be eye witnesses, have not alleged that accused Daya ever entered the house with other two accused. It is also not alleged by them that accused Daya was armed with knife. These witnesses have made exaggeration to support the case of the prosecution. Regarding Bhupendra Singh (PW-8), learned counsel argued that even this witness has also not stated the truth when he said that at the time of entry of the accused, he was in the toilet and his father was in the common chowk of the house. When he resisted the entry of the accused, they inflicted knife blows on his person. He also stated that he saw the accused entering the house from the window of the toilet and saw Bahadur Singh standing outside the house. When he came out of toilet, he too was subjected to severe knife blows by the accused.