RAI SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated Nov. 20, 1993 of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 245/90, convicting and sentencing the appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(RAJ)8_19961.html</FRM>

(2.) The facts of the case are extensively set-out in the impugned judgment of the trial court and they indicate that the incident took place at the bus stand of village Salotiya at 5.30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 1990. PW. 15 - Nazimulla. S.H.O., Police Station, Sunel, having learnt from some employees of his Police Station that at the bus stand of the village a fight has taken place between two parties, reached to the scene of occurrence after making an entry (Ex.R 37) in 'Rojnamcha Am' of the Police Station alongwith the police force. At the scene of occurrence, he found Hansraj and Umrao Singh in injured condition. The injured were shifted to the hospital at Bhawani Mandi. Thereafter, 'Parcha Bayan' (Ex.P 1) of Umrao Singh was recorded at 19.05 hrs. on the same day. In the same process, further statement of Umrao Singh as dying declaration was recorded by the doctor. This 'Parcha Bayan' was treated as F.I.R. and Crime No 102/92 was registered under Sections 302, 307 and 323 I.PC. Hansraj died when he was being shifted to the hospital from the scene of occurrence. Further details about the investigation need not be stated by us as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants restricted his arguments about the nature of offence committed by the appellant Rai Singh and the sentence to be awarded to him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Suffice is to say that the trial Court, placing reliance on the testimony of PW. 1 -Umrao Singh, injured eye-witness, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

(3.) Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stoutly contended that the offence under Sec. 302 I.PC. is not made out against the appellant, Rai Singh. According to the learned counsel, even if the statement of injured eye-witness Umrao Singh is taken on its face value, only one blow by a lathi is alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant Rai Singh to the deceased and that is to also not known as to on which part of his body it struck. Learned counsel contended that admittedly, the appellants had no previous enmity or any other motive to commit murder of Hansraj, and the incident took place all of a sudden on some oral altercation between the parties. The members of the complainant party had come to the village for negotiation with the accused about some land belonging to an old lady. For the appellant-Poori Lal, learned counsel contended that sentence of imprisonment awarded under Sec. 326 I.PC. be reduced to the period already undergone by him and in lieu thereof, sentence of fine may be increased.