YADRAM ALIAS SHANTILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22-3-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'Indian Penal Code', for short) and has been sentenced to Five years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and to further undergo five months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on 8.12.1977, Akhesingh (PW1) lodged a oral report at Police Station Basedi wherein he claimed that he is a resident of village Phunspura. According to him, on the night of 7.12.1977 while he was sleeping in his house, between 12 O'clock and 1.00 a.m., his wife, Anguri, awoke him up and told him that thieves have entered their house. As he tried to go out, he discovered that door was locked from the outside. Through the chinks of the doors, he could see two persons standing outside. He shouted for his brothers, Mansingh and Madansingh. Hearing his shout, both Mansingh and Madansingh came out from their rooms. As soon as his brothers came out from their rooms, the assailants fired at them. Consequently, both of them were injured and they fell. After sometime, both the brothers revived and attacked the assailants with "lathis". Madansingh's wife, Mst. Kasturi, came forward to open the door of the informant's room. In order to stop her from doing so, the thieves standing outside the door attacked her with a sword. Consequently, she suffered injuries on her hand and head. She escaped from that place and rushed to the roof of the house where she shouted for help to the villagers, who were fast asleep. Hearing her shouts, the villagers rushed to their rescue. When the theives saw the villagers coming towards the house, they ran away. Eventually, one of them was caught by the villagers. According to the complainant, there were six persons, who had committed dacoity in his house. The person, who was caught, gave out his name as "Yadram son of Shri Nathu". The complainant and the villagers brought him to the Police Station. The complainant also handed over a box which the dacoits had abandoned while they were running. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR (Ex P1), FIR No. 87/1977 was chalked out for offences under Sections 450 300, 307 of IPC. During the course of the investigation, the police arrested four other accused persons namely Ramavtar Padma, Maharaj Singh and Chitariya. However, during the course of trial, Ramavtar absconded and vide order dated 24.11.1982 a separate trial was ordered to be held for him.

(3.) During the course of the trial, the charges for offence under Sections 395 and 307 of the Code were framed against all the accused persons including the present appellant, Yadram. They denied the same and requested for a trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. And in order to prove his case, the appellant examined a single witness DW1, Munsi. In the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as the 'CrPC', for short), the accused appellant denied the case of the prosecution and claimed that he was caught by the villagers in the forest and has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, he came to buy a buffalo and had statyed the night at the house of Munsi (DW1). Thus, according to him, he has been falsely implicated in the case. However, after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellant as aforementioned, but acquitted the other three accused persons namely Maharaja, Padma and Chitariya. The present appellant was also acquitted for offence under Section 307 of IPC, but was convicted under Section 395 of IPC. Hence, this appeal before this Court.