STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. POORAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been presented against the judgment dated 30. 11. 77 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 40/77 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents from all the charges levelled against them.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Rampershad (PW-1) lodged a report at P. S. Kumher on 8. 3. 77 at 10 AM. It was alleged in that report that on 6. 3. 77 at about 10 AM the informant and his father Roopkishore were harvesting the mustard crop in their Khalyan At that time, the accused-respondents Pooran, Laxman and Brijwasi went to the Khalyan of the informant armed with spade and lathis with the intention to commit murder of Roopkishore. Brijwasi gave threatening to his father that Roopkishore is a great litigant and he had instituted a lot of cases against them (accused) and as such they are facing a lot of trouble. Therefore, we will finish Roopkishore today. After this threathing accused Laxman and Brijwasi caught hold of Roopkishore and Pooran gave a spade blow on the head of Roopkishore. As Roopkishore was falling down, Laxman gave another blow on the person of Roopkishore which hit him on the back. Roopkishore started bleeding from his head injury. It has been further alleged that Pw-1 Rampershad raised an alarm. Lehricharan and others who were present nearby the scene of occurrence came to the spot. Brijwasi also raised a lathi to inflict a blow on the person of Roopkishore but it was caught hold of by Rampershad, and thus the above eye witness and Rampershad saved Roopkishore from further beating. The accused respondents thinking that Roopkishore might have died, ran away.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand argued that the delay in lodging the report has not been explained satisfactorily and that the eye witnesses are not only related to the deceased but are inimical towards the accused, which has been admitted by the eye witnesses in their cross-examination. The delayed despatch of F. I. R. to the concerning Magistrate is a serious infirmity and it casts a great doubt on the prosecution version. He has further submitted that it has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that Bhikki whose house is just near the place of occurrence also appeared at the spot, but he has not been produced by the prosecution. As such, the adverse inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be bad in law. He also submitted that the recovery of the spade has not been proved. The recovery has been made from an open land accessible to all. It has been stated that the spade was blood stained, but there was no such mention in the recovery memo which makes the recovery doubtful. Moreover, the recovery was made after 18 days of the occurrence, and the spade was sent to the Serologist after 26 days. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the deceased sustained injury by a blunt object The prosecution witnesses have alleged that the injury was caused by Fawra. Looking to the statements and the allegations there was no reason to use the blunt side of the spade in a case where the offender was having a sharp object, and as such it should be presumed that the sharp side of the weapon was used. Because of this reason the prosecution evidence becomes doubtful. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the appeal is against the judgment of acquittal, which is based on good reasonings. Therefore, interference in the judgment of acquittal is not possible.