AHSAN AND ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed Under Sec. 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code. against the judgment dated 6.11.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 34/92 whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Under Sec. 364, Indian Penal Code awarding a sentence of 10 years' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. of 2 years.

(2.) The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that Jagdish (deceased), along with his mother was residing in the village Sehnali Badi in Police Station, Ratannagar with PW 14 Gordhan. On 28.4.1992 at 11.30 a.m., PW 14 Gordhan lodged a verbal report with PW 23 Lakhmeer Singh, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Ratannagar, alleging that in the morning of previous day, he along with Jagdish and PW 12 Sunder Lal had gone to Churu for purchasing some goods. After purchases were made, at about 5.00 p.m., Jagdish left their company. Both Gordhan and Sunder Lal boarded a bus plying from Churu to Ramgarh. When the bus reached the turn of the village Sheopura, they saw a crowd of some people and they found that two persons (accused-appellants) were abusing Jagdish and they were threatening him to pay tax fare. An auto ricksaw (three wheeler) No. RJI 2653 was also standing there. Sunder Lal told them that he is arranging for the fare money and Jagdish should not be hurt. Sunder Lal collected Rs. 10.00 each from PW 1 Chatru Ram and PW 3 Mst. Shanti, who were residents of village Sheopura. However, accused were insisting upon for payment of Rs. 30.00 as taxi fare. Since Rs. 10.00 more were being demanded, which Jagdish as well as Sunderlal and Gordhan were not in a position to arrange immediately. Accused-appellant Ahsan was driver of the vehicle while Yaqub Ali was conductor of the same. Ahsan insisted for immediate payment of the taxi fare. They forcibly put Jagdish into the tempo and then also gave him thrashing, as alleged, they threatened Jagdish to kill him to death. Gordhan unsuccessfully tried to intervene and apologised but the accused did not release Jagdish and they left from there in the tempo along with Jagdish, Jagdish on returning to his house, narrated this incident to PW 9 Mst. Kalia, mother of Jagdish. They weighted for return of Jagdish throughout the night. On the morning of 28.4.1992 itself, Sunder Lal was summoned and Gordhan as well as Sunder Lal left for Churu in the bus. At about 9.30 a.m., they reached the crossing of village Depalsar and they found some persons standing on the road. The bus driver stopped the bus. They saw that the dead body of Jagdish was lying by the road side. It was bleeding from his head and mouth. Therefore, it was reported that since Jagdish had failed to pay full taxi fare and, therefore, he was killed to death by both the accused appellants. On this Ex. P/17 FIR was recorded by lakhmeer Singh and investigation was taken up by PW 24 Murlidhar Charan, Dy. S.P., Churu. He inspected the site. He seized a pair of 'chappals', a red-cloth-sheet, plastic bag and clothes were found on the dead body. He got the photographs of dead body. Accused were arrested vide Ex. P/30 and Ex. P/31. An autopsy of the dead body was conducted by PW 19 Dr. Hanuman Singh Rathore. He found as many as 14 injuries on the dead body. Out of them 9 were abrasions and 4 were bruises. All these 13 injuries were simple. However, a lacerated wound over the right parietal part of scalp near middle line 6" away from right mestoid process of bone measuring 1" x 1/2" x 1" was found, as a result, right parietal bone was found to be fractured. There was formation of the haemotoma in between right parietal lobe or brain and bone and right middle meningeal artery was ruptured. This injury was found to be fatal. As a result, it was opined that Jagdish had died due to shock as a result of haemorrhage (intra-cranial).

(3.) On completion of investigation, the Police presented a charge-sheet Under Sections 302/34 & 364, Indian Penal Code as well as Under Sec. 3(l)(x), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 in the Court of the then Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu. Since the same was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, accused was committed to the Court of Sessions, Churu. The learned Sessions Judge charged-sheeted the accused for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 364 & 302/34, Indian Penal Code, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Chatru Ram, PW 2 Tulsi Ram, PW 3 Mst. Shanti, PW 4 Ram Gopal, PW 5 Fateh Mohd., PW 6 Milap @ Girdhari, PW 7 Bhagirath, PW 8 Shishpal, PW 9 Mst. Kalia, PW 10 Bhani Ram, PW 11 Mahendra Singh, PW 12 Sunder Lal, PW 13 Saddique, PW 14 Gordhan, PW 15 Surendra Kumar, PW 16 Kodu Ram, PW 17 Om Prakash, PW 18 Govind Prasad, PW 19 Dr. Hanuman Singh Rathore, PW 20 Bhanwar Singh, PW 21 Phool Chand Jhajharia, PW 22 Amar Singh, PW 23 Lakhmeer Singh and PW 24 Murlidhar.