STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This, appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 3 1.8.1978 whereby he has acquitted the accused respondents of the offence under sees. 302, 302 134 IPC.

(2.) Briefly sated the facts of the case are that one Keshra Ram P.W. 2 lodged an FIR as P.S. Ghamoorwali against his three brothers Balu, Dungar and Ramu alleging that on 12.1.1977 his another brother Uma was going with daughter Manohari P.W. 4 for taking tea at his house but as he was not there Uma returned back and at that time Ramu gave him a Danda blow on the head of Keshra.lt is alleged that on receiving the injury Uma fell down on the earth and the accused persons picked him up to their house. It is also alleged that Manohari the daughter of the deceased Uma followed them but she was threatened by the accused persons not to follow. It is alleged that Manohari narrated the story to her mother Sarbati and Kalia P.W. 3. Thereupon, Kalia was sent to intimate the Pradhan Gangram, thereafter Pradhan Ganga ram sent Vdaram for getting the knowledge of the occurrence. It is further alleged that Vdaram, found that Balu was formenting the deceased and on making enquiry from Balu informed that he inflicted a injury on Keshar ram with Lakri. Thereupon the case was registered and the police started investigation. The police prepared necessary exhibits and post-mortem of the dead body was got conducted after recovered the dead body from a well. The articles recovered were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratroy. The accused-respondents were arrested. After completion of usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused respondents. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 26 witnesses and produced 48 documents. In defence, the accused-respondent did not produce any witness. However, the accused persons stated that they neither inflicted any injury, on the head of the deceased nor kept the deceased in their house nor thrown the dead body in the well. The accused persons also stated that they neither got recovered watch of the deceased nor bunch of keys nor his shoes. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after completion of the trial acquitted the accused persons of the offence. Hence, the State had filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. V.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court has erred in not accepting the statement of the eye witness P.W. 4 Manohari and the extrajudicial confession made by the accused before P.W. 11 Gangaram. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court may be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the offence under secs. 302, 302/34 IPC. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents.