SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforementioned five criminal appeals and one criminal revision petition, arises out of the common judgment dated 28. 5. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu whereby accused appellants - (1) Ishwar Singh, (2) Pramendra @ Pappu, (3) Vinod Kumar, (4) Jai Singh, (5) Jagveer, (6) Tejpal @ Teja, (7) Dharmendra, (8) Rajpal, (9) Sudhir Kumar, (10) Jai Pal Singh, (11) Jai Singh S/o Shri Mam Chand, (12) Hukmi Chand and (13) Nihal Singh @ Nihala, were convicted for offence u/s 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment and were also convicted for the offence under section 325 read with section 149, IPC and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. All the accused appellants were convicted for offence u/s 323 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- and in default whereof, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. All the accused were convicted for offence u/s 447 and each of them was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/- and in default whereof, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Accused Nihal Singh @ Nihala, Sudhir, Jaipal Singh, Jai Singh and Jagveer were separately convicted for offence u/s 304-II r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED trial court further directed accused appellants Nihal Singh @ Nihala, Sudhir, Jaipal Singh, Jai Singh S/o Shri Mam Chand and Jagveer that each of them shall to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in total Rs. 50,000/-, to complainant Ramswaroop, husband of deceased Mst. Chand Kaur.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (in Appeal No. 655/04) argued that the learned trial court has applied different yardsticks in evaluating and appreciating the statements given by the prosecution witnesses and those of the defence witnesses. In doing so, the learned trial court has completely missed the basic rule of burden of proof that while the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, defence has to only probablise its version because degree of standard of proof required for the defence is only by preponderance of probabilities. Even though as many as six defence witnesses have given the probable defence of the accused but the same has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial court. These witnesses provided corroboration to the defence of the accused appellants disclosed by them in the statements under section 313 Cr. P. C. Accused Pramendra @ Pappu in his statement before the trial court stated that he had gone to Jaisinghpura and continued to stay there from 14. 3. 2000 to 16. 3. 2000 for some consultation with Ram Singh but he was falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. Accused Rajpal has stated in defence that he was not present at the time of incident and was in fact at the residence of Manphool Mistri with Jai Singh and Dharmpal at Bhooriwas and he too was falsely implicated. Accused Hukmichand has categorically stated that on 14. 3. 2000, he had gone to Mahendragarh, in State of Haryana and returned back from there on 16. 3. 2000 and Jagdish and Ratan Singh were with me at that time and thus he was falsely implicated. Shri Biri Singh further argued that the accused appellants had no intention of causing death of deceased Mst. Chand Kaur. The evidence that has come on record coupled with the defence of alibi offered by a number of accused clearly indicates a definite tendency on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate innocent persons. This makes out a case of false implication and, at least of over implication thus making prosecution story completely doubtful. According to him, the motive of the complainant party in implicating the accused was political rivalry between two groups of the village because wife of accused Nihal Singh had contested election for the office of Sarpanch and was defeated by the candidate of the accused party by a thin margin of merely 15 votes.