NAVAL & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution story in a nutshell is that there was a long standing feud between P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh on one hand and accused Gulab and Naval on the other. On 12-12-68 in the afternoon P. W. 1 Randhir and his brother P. W. 2 Jawansingh in the company of P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan were smoking 'hukka' sitting in their 'bakhal'. At that time P. W. 6 Shibbmalso happened to come there. The accused-petitioner Naval, Hari Singh and four others Pyarsingh, Har Kishan, Gulab and Ramdayal (acquitted by the appellate court) formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to inflict injuries to Randhir and his brother and came to the house of P. W. 1 Randhir. Accused Gulab asked him to come out of the house, but the latter refused to oblige him and thereafter all of them entered the premises of the complainant and inflicted injuries on the persons of P. W. 1 Randhir and Jawansingh. Jagram and Malkhan intervened, but inspite of their intervention the accused succeeded in inflicting four injuries to P. W. 1 Randhir and two injuries to P. W. 2 Jawansingh. Their injury reports are Ex. P/5 and Ex P/4 respectively. One of the injuries sustained by Randhir was found to be grievous, after confirmation from X-ray examination. First Information Report of this occurrence was lodged at the police station, Hindaun on 13-12-1968 at 4 p.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is nine miles. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the six accused in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Hindaun. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of their case. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime. They examined two witnesses D. W. 1 Mangilal and D. W. 2 Punia in support of their case. The learned Magistrate found the defence story unreliable. Out of the seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution P. W. 6 Shibbu did not support the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh are the injured persons. P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhan are close relatives of the complainant, both of them do not belong to the village where the occurrence took place. The learned Magistrate after scanning the evidence and placing reliance on the statements of the injured persons P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh corroborated by the statements of Jagram (P. W. 3) and P. W. 4 Malkhan and P. W. 5 Dr. N L. Bharadwaj convicted and sentenced ail the six accused challaned before him as under - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_39_LAWS(RAJ)11_19761.html</FRM>

(2.) The petitioners along with four other accused preferred an appeal challenging their convictions and sentences which came up for decision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, who by his judgment dated 4-10-72 partly accepted the appeal. He acquitted accused Gulab, Pyarsingh, Harkishan and Ramdayal of all the charges framed against them. The convictions and sentences imposed against accused Naval by the trial court under sections 326 and 448, I. P. C. were maintained. He however, acquitted him of the offence punishable under sections 148 and 324, read with section 149, I. P. C. Conviction and sentence awarded to accused Harisingh under section 448, I. P. C., was maintained, but his conviction under section 324 read with section 149, I. P. C. was converted to section 323, 1. P. C., and he was sentenced to three months' R. I. He was acquitted of all the other charges framed against him. Hence this revision-petition.

(3.) The learned counsel Miss. Sumitra Sankhla, appearing for the accused-petitioners, has contended that the prosecution witnesses have not come out with a correct version as to how the quarrel started. The appellate court held that accused Gulab, Pyarsingh, Harkishan and Ramdayal were falsely implicated and as such the conviction based on the testimony of such unreliable partisan and inimical witnesses P. W. 1 Randhir and P. W. 2 Jawansingh, cannot be maintained. The learned counsel further urged that P. W. 3 Jagram and P. W. 4 Malkhanare not the residents of the village where the occurrence took place. They had no reason to be on the place of occurrence and they can very well be termed as chance witnesses. It is proverbially rash to rely upon the statements of chance witnesses. In support of her contention she placed reliance on a Privy Council decision Ismail Ahmed Peepadi Vs. Momin Bibi and others, AIR 1941 Privy Council 11 . The case of the acquitted accused cannot be separated from that of the convicted accused-petitioners and the entire prosecution case must fail. In the alternative it was urged that there are material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the causing of the grievous hurt by accused Naval to Randhir at the most he could be convicted under section 324, I.P.C., and not under section 326, I. P. C.