PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH, the appellant herein was put to trial before the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and District and Sessions Judge, Dholpura, in Sessions Case No. 59/2002. the learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 11-8-2005, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six month's imprisonment. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed and in default of payment of fine to undergo six days imprisonment. While the appellant was acquitted for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1989' ).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the informant Meer Singh lodged a written report (Ex. P. 10) at Police Station Kanchanpura, on 31-3-2002, at 10 a. m. stating that on 30-3-2002 at about 7-8 p. m. the accused appellant Prakash s/o Sanja, by caste Gusai, resident of Math Hansai inflicted lathi blows on the head and temporal region of his uncle Pooran as a result of which he died and this incident was witnesses by Pooran S/o Shiv Narain Meena and Rakesh S/o Ram Khiladi Meena, residents of village Hansai. THE dead body of his uncle Pooran was brought to the village and was placed at his residence. It was further stated that after the incident, the accused Prakash fled away from the scene of occurrence and the whole incident was brought to the knowledge of the informant by his aunt Charandei w/o deceased Pooran and his son Munni Chand, who went to inform at village Surethi in the night.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant urged following points: (i) testimony of eye-witness Rakesh (P. W. 13), Pooran Singh (P. W. 14) and Dharmendra (P. W. 1) lacked in inherent consistency and probability and thereby the same was devoid of intrinsic truth; (ii) the eye-witnesses Rakesh (P. W. 13) and Pooran Singh (P. W. 14) were in fact the person who were responsible for the death of deceased Pooran while the appellant had no motive to assault and to cause death; (iii) the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the prosecution story; (iv) the testimony of the eye-witnesses is afflicted by contradictions, improvements and embellishments making them unworthy of credit; and (v) the investigation is unfair and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond doubt.