NARAYAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case No.45/2007 whereof all the accused have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Sec. 302/120B I.P.C Accused appellants Narayan Lal, Azad Singh, Shankar Lal, Mangla Ram @ Mangi Lal and Suresh Kumar have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default to pay fine further to undergo for six months' simple imprisonment. Under Sec. 302 I.P.C Accused appellants Narayan Lal, Shankar Lal and Azad Singh have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default to pay fine, further to undergo for six months' simple imprisonment. Under Sec. 4/25 Arms Act Accused appellants Shankar Lal and Azad Singh have been convicted and sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 each and in default to pay fine, further to undergo for 15 days' simple imprisonment.

(2.) The allegations as mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/16 goes to reveal that Varadram S/o Gaina Ji submitted a written report at P.S. Guda Endla, alleging therein that on 31.08.2007, at about 12.00 noon, an information was received in the village that there was a dead-body found near Laal Baori beside Maknaba Piyao, on which, he went to the spot and found, it was a body of his younger brother Manaram, sharp edged weapon deadly injuries were caused to him by unknown persons and murdered him, so legal action be taken, this FIR was lodged under Sec. 302 I.P.C. by Shri Varda Ram and was registered as FIR No.108/2007 at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali on 31.08.2007.

(3.) Heard submission of both the sides, Shri Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants Suresh and Narayan, while relying upon Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Banna Vs. State of Rajasthan, [2013] Supreme (Raj.) 377, Rishipal Vs. State of Uttarkhand, [2013] supreme (SC) 26, Tarseem, Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration (1994)SCC (Cri) 1735] has contended that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and no disclosure of anybody's involvement was made at the time of lodging of the FIR, there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, motive is also not established, so far as the alleged property of Bombay is concerned, which is allegedly been told to be the reason of alleged assassination, has also not been ascertained and investigated, so it is a hypothesis that there was any property in Bombay, which caused greed animosity and Ex.1 diary is a fake and concocted document and it has been established by evidence of DW-1; generally signatures of the person receiving money are taken, for any such alleged payment acknowledgment but here no such signatures have been taken allegedly of accused Narayan but signatures of Suresh are there, which makes the existence of the diary bogus. Story of last seen is also not confirmed. Evidence of Gulab reveals that Vardha Ram and Mukesh were earlier detained by the police, on suspicion and they could get released, on paying certain fiscal considerations, which goes to show that police has wrongly involved innocent persons and entire recovery is fake, prosecution has failed to establish its case. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and findings of learned trial court are erroneous. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the accused appellants may be acquitted. Learned counsels Mr. Dhirender Singh and Mr. Shambhu Singh for the accused-appellants Narayan Lal, Suresh Kumar, Shankar Lal and Azad Singh, while relying upon the judgment in Alagupandi @ Alagupandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012(2) ACR 1751 (SC) have contended that the recovery is not established and it is fake. PW-13 recovery witness has become hostile and another recovery witness has not been examined, prosecution has wrongly named and challaned the accused persons, without any substance. The findings of the trial court are also not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant have further contended that the findings are liable to be reversed and accused-appellants are liable to be acquitted. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the appellant Mangla Ram @ Mangilal, while relying upon the judgment of Mulakh Raj & etc. Vs. Satish Kumar and others AIR 1992 SC 1175 has contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of Gulab and prosecution has wrongly invented a bogus theory of enmity, no such property was there in Bombay nor any investigation has been made in this respect, theory of last seen together is also fake, had it been correct, then the FIR would have revealed the names of the accused persons, in order to involve innocent persons and to spare actual culprits, wrong theory has been invented and accused persons have wrongly been involved. The findings of learned trial court is not sustainable, so it be quashed and the accused-appellant be set at liberty. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended said that the trial court has elaborately dealt with every nicety of evidence, wife of deceased Maana Ram Smt. Gulab has candidly narrated that the accused persons used to visit to their house in order to threaten them, deceased was given ultimatum, on several times that he will be eliminated, if he is not distracted and disassociated from the Bombay property, a day before, accused persons came on the bike and threatened the deceased, deceased was also intermediary in vehicular sale so, on pretext to get a suitable bike bought, he was allured to accompany, which has correctly been narrated by wife of the deceased and deceased was taken on motor-cycle by the accused persons and subsequently soon after departure he was found dead and murdered. Recovery of weapon and apparels have also been made, which has been found tainted with "A" group human blood, which establishes that clothing of the accused persons and that of deceased and blood sample taken from the place of incident and blood stains found on the weapon i.e. on "kooth" and "dagger" have also been found tainted with same "A" group blood, which is established by FSL report, the prosecution has successfully established its case, on the doctrine of last seen together, as well as, well connected with FSL and medical report, there is no flaw in the evidence of the prosecution. The diary was also written, in respect of, payment of killing-money, cruel murder has been committed by the accused persons in a concerted planed manner with manifest conspiracy, so there is no error in the findings of the trial court, it is worthy, hence the appeal/s be dismissed and the findings of learned trial court may be upheld. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned public prosecutor have relied on the following judgments Bijender Singh Vs. State, (Criminal Appeal No.752/200, decided by Delhi High Court on 25/04/2016, Alagupandi @ Alagupandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012)10 SSC 451, Mulakh Raj, etc. Vs. Satish Kumar and Others, AIR 1992 SC 1175 and Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra 2017 Cri.L.J. 988.