STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY leave, the State has come -up in appeal and challenges the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara dated September 2,1974, by which the accused -respondents Halu, Nanka and Puniya were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34, I.P.C

(2.) AT about 8.30 p.m. on July 13,1973, PW 1 Dharji appeared at Police Station, Banswara and verbally lodged report Ex. PI. It was stated therein that at about 4.30 p.m. on that day his brother Kanji (the deceased -victim) his wife Mst. Sajjana (PW 4), his brother Dhanji (CW 1) and his wife were cleaning the grass -bundles in the river near their fields situate in Mauja Sakwadiya. He was up -rooting the grass in his field. The three accused Halu, Nanka and Puniya came there. Accused Halu had an axe with him while the remaining two had lathies. Accused Halu struck blows on the head of Kanji with his axe and the other two accused struck blows to him with their lathies. The accused Nanka and Puniya also struck blows to him (Dharji PW 1) and his other brother Dhanji (CW 1) with their lathies. Kanji fell down and there was profuse bleeding from his wounds. Kanji became unconscious on the spot. The incident was seen by PW 2 Veerji, PW 3 Mst. Hamiri and PW 5 Parthu. PW 2 Veerji and PW 5 Parthu were then taking bath in the river. The police registered a case under Section 307, I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer Ishwar Lal (PW 13) arrived on the spot on July 17, 1973 and prepared site plan Ex. P 2. Kanji was taken to the General Hospital, Banswara, where his injuries were examined by PW 16 Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj, the then Medical Officer Incharge. The doctor noticed the following injuries on his person:

(3.) WE have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and are constrained to observe that the judgment written by him is laconic and defective. He has not at all discussed the evidence of the eye witnesses and has not recorded a finding as to whether the deceased Kanji was assaulted and belaboured by the accused -respondents. He proceeded that the eye witnesses were false simply because they had not explained the injuries found on the person of accused Halu. We are unable to appreciate his approach. Since the appeal is against acquittal and the acquittal is challenged as erroneous, the entire prosecution evidence will have to be read and considered.