KHEM CHAND ALIAS KHEMESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHEM Chand @ KHEMesh and Prem Shankar, appellants herein along with two other co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bayana (Bharatpur), who vide judgment dated February 15, 2003 while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- KHEM Chand @ KHEMesh: u/s. 302/34 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/s. 307 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/s. 341 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Prem Shankar: u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/s. 307/34 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. u/s. 341 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:- On receiving written information from the Hospital about fire arm incident, Nasir Khan, Sub Inspector Police Station Bayana (Bharatpur) rushed to the hospital and recorded parcha bayan of Thalesh Chand (PW. 2) on November 11, 1996 at 12. 15 PM. Thalesh Chand stated that on the said day around 11. 45 AM while he and his son Rajesh were proceeding to meet one Satya Prakash, they were belaboured near the well by Khemesh, Virma @ Prem Shankar, Gudda @ Akhlesh and one bearded boy, Prem Shankar then opened three fires from Katta on Rajesh, that hit on his chest. Khemesh opened fire with 12 bore Katta at him (Thalesh) and caused injury on his hip. Gudda who was armed with sword, left the sword and fled away. THE assault was made because of old enmity. Pooran, Tekchand @ Pola and Laddu @ Mool Chand had seen the incident. Rajesh was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. On that parcha bayan a case under Section 302, 307, 341/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bayana, Charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34 and 341 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Six witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions, while acquitting co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT was canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the contradictions in the statement of Thalesh Chand he could not be ranked as wholly reliable witness therefore his testimony ought to have been outrightly discarded. Learned counsel pointed out the embellishment made by the witness in his cross examination. Learned counsel placed reliance on State of UP vs. Madan Mohan (AIR 1989 SC 1519), Satya Narayan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1972 SC 1309), Narain Soni vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 Crlr (Raj.) 164), Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan (1996 (1) RLW (Raj. 533), Babu Krishna Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1989 SC 1269), Kachwa vs. State of Rajasthan (1985 RLR 92) and Harish Chandra @ Pappu vs. State of Rajasthan (1996 Crlr (Raj.) 177 ).