ISLAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated May 24, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kaman whereby the appellants, nine in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellants Islam, Iliyas, Haroon, Aas Mohammad, Ramazan and Muniya: U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 323 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 325/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants Saboo and Bhuru: U/s. 148 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 323 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 325/149 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 302 IPC: Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant Kallu: U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 325 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 302/149 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story on November 11, 1992 SHO Police Station Kaman recorded parcha bayan (Ex. P-10) of Smt. Maina (Pw. 9) wherein she stated that because of fishing dispute she had to leave her village. She proceeded for village Hathiya on November 10, 1992 around 9 PM in a bullock-cart along with her Devar (husband's brother) Haroon and Nandoi (sister-in-law's husband ). On the way they were belaboured by the appellants. Sabu (appellant) inflicted Pharsi-blow on the head of Haroon whereas Bhuru (appellant) and Deenu (absconded during trial) who were armed guns, opened fire. When she made attempt to intervene she was also beaten up. Haroon died on the spot. On that Parcha Bayan a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kaman. Charges under sections 147, 148, 325/149, 323, 302, 302/149 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 11 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Three witnesses in support of their defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) THERE was a considerable doubt in the instant case whether Islam, Iliyas, Haroon, Aas Mohammad, Kallu, Ramzan and Muniya were present on the scene at all. Having separated truth from the falsehood, we find the testimony of Smt. Maina (Pw. 9) consistent qua Bhuru, Saboo and Deenu only. Possibility of over implication of other accused cannot be ruled out.