RAM BHAROS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi, vide its judgment and order dated 30th January, 2004, in Sessions Case No. 81/2001, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants - (1) Ram Bharosh S/o Ghasi Lal Mali, (2) Ram Charan S/o Shri Ghasi Lal Mali, (3) Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Panna Mali, (4) Bhola Shankar S/o Shri Govinda Mali, (5) Ghasi Lal S/o Shri Panna Lal Mali and (6) Nand Lal @ Nanda S/o Shri Keshri Lal Teli, as under:- Under Sections Sentence of Imprisonment 148, IPc To undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month additional simple imprisonment 307/149, IPc To undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month additional simple imprisonment 323/149, IPc To pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment 341, IPc To pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a first information report No. 309/1996 (Exhibit P-27) was registered at Police Station Taleda, District Bundi, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307/323, IPC and under section 27 of the Arms Act, on the basis of `parcha bayan' of injured Rameshwar (Exhibit P-1) dated 29. 9. 1996 recorded at General Hospital, Bundi, by the Station House Officer, Kotwali - Bundi. It was stated by the injured that at about 5. 00 PM he was going on his scooter with his brother Birdhilal from Taleda and when he reached near Dhora, the accused persons (15 in number) stopped them. Ram Bharos fired from their back-side thereby he sustained injury at his back. Ram Charan also fired his gun and his brother sustained injury at his leg. Prabhu inflicted a 'kulhadi' blow thereby he sustained head injury. Ghasi also inflicted 'lathi' blow thereby he sustained an injury on his hand. All the accused-persons inflicted injuries on his person and on the person of his brother.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Shri A. K. Gupta, contended that as per the statements of PW-1 Rameshwar, PW-2 Birdhilal, PW-3 Smt. Shantibai and PW-4 Mohanlal, it is clear that initially a report was lodged by Mohanlal at Police Station Taleda but the said original report has not been produced in the case by the prosecution. THE present F. I. R. (Exhibit P-27) has been registered on the basis of 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P-1) of injured Rameshwar recorded by the S. H. O. , Kotwali - Bundi. THE prosecution has deliberately concealed the original F. I. R. , and has not come with clean hands before the Court. THE present F. I. R. is ante-dated and false allegations have been alleged in it, therefore, the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful and the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of the said doubt. It is further contended that there was no occasion for the accused-persons to go at the spot where the incident took place. It was not on the way. He referred the statements of PW-1 Rameshwar and PW-2 Birdhilal in support of his contention that the way was about one kilometer away from the place of incident and the present case has falsely been lodged against the accused- persons by the complainant party.