RAMNATH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kekri for committing lurking House trespass by night in the house of Madho and for causing injuries. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the statements of Madho, the Author of the First Information Report and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence corroborated by the statement of Ladu and considering the general probabilities of the case, convicted the accused under Sec. 457 I.P.C. and sentenced them to 9 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 each. They were also convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to one Month's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50.00 each. Aggrieved with their conviction and sentence the accused persons went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who after-re-appraisal of the evidence, upheld the conviction of the accused under section 457, and 323 I.P.C. and reduced their sentence from 9 months' R. Rs.and a fine of Rs.200.00 each to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200.00 each under section 457 I.P.C. Their conviction under section 323 I.P.C. was also upheld but the sentence was reduced from one months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50.00 to one month's R. I. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order in the grounds (1) that the First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged after 24 hours (ii) they have been falsely implicated due to enmity (iii) it was a dark night and the accused could not be identified at the time of occurrence, (iv) non-examination of Yasoda Devi.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the accused and the author or of the first information report are the residents of the same village and as such there is nothing unusual in identifying the accused persons at night time. A known person can be identified even from a distant place whereas in the case on hand, Madho had seen the accused from a close range. Statement of Ladu could be read in support of the eye-witnesses under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reference may be made to Ramratan and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1962 S. C. 424. No doubt the first information report in the case on hand was lodged after 24 hours of the occurrence but this fact alone is not sufficient to throw the prosecution case. The infirmity has been considered by the two courts below. The Courts of fact have held the prosecution case reliable and I find no reason to hold otherwise. The sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot be said to be excessive.