IIIYAS ALIAS IIIYAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated October 5, 2006 of the learned Sessions Judge Karauli, whereby the appellants, two in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer five months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 392/397 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment U/s. 460 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that a written report (Ex. P-6) was lodged by informant Gulab Singh on January 23, 2001 at Police Station Karauli with the averments that in the intervening night of 22 and 23 of January, 2001 at about 2. 30 AM certain miscreants trespassed the house of his brother Devi Singh. Hearing noise, Ravi (grand son of Devi Singh) woke up and made attempt to catch hold of miscreants. But the miscreant over powered Ravi and opened fire at him, as a result of which Ravi died instantly. The miscreants took with them a box and other valuable articles. On that report case was registered and investigation commenced. Accused Shabbir and Shahid @ Saiyo @ Tonta were arrested and charge sheet was filed against them. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Karauli, who convicted and sentenced Shabbir and Sahid @ saiyo @ Tonta for the offences under sections 302/34, 392 and 460 IPC vide judgment dated April 2, 2003.

(3.) SECTION 145 gives right to cross examine a witness on previous statements made by him and reduced into writing, when these previous statements are relevant to the matter in issue, whereas SECTION 155 (3) provides that the credit of witness may be impeached by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. In view of these provisions the appellant had a right to confront Meena Devi from her previous statements made by her in Sessions Case No. 55/2001. In depriving the appellant of such right failure of justice have been occasioned to him.