SHANKER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State in Sessions Case No. 55/1977, State v. Shanker and others, three persons namely Shanker, Hanuman and Nikku alias Manjeet were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh. Whereas Shanker was tried for the offences punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act, the other accused Nikku alias Manjeet and Hanuman were charged under S.302 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial appellant Shanker was found guilty under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and under S.25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act sentenced to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment. The remaining two accused were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of conviction as well as sentence Shanker has filed this appeal.

(2.) In short the prosecution case is that on account of murder which was committed sometime during the infancy of the appellant-Shanker, there was a grudge which the appellant was bearing against Hari Ram, the deceased. On 20th January, 1977 at about 5 p.m. Bhopal Singh and Hari Ram were passing by the side of house of Gordhandas Mundra. At that time three persons who had hidden their faces, reached there and one of them opened fire with a pistol at Hari Ram. Consequently Hari Ram sustained fatal injuries on account of which he died. The faces of the three persons who attacked Hari Ram could not be recognised at the spot. The First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station on 20th January, 1977 at 6.10 p.m. On the basis of the report police registered the case under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after usual investigation the challan was submitted before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh who ultimately committed the case to the Court of Session.

(3.) Charges were framed against three persons as described above and they pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution produce its evidence. As many as 7 witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The accused persons were examined under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No evidence was led in defence.