NENA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Nena Ram and Bhura Ram against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Merta, dated 5th September, 1974, by which Nena Ram was convicted under S. 304, Part II and S. 324, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and on the second to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. By this very judgment, Bhura Ram appellant was convicted under S. 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants was as follows: -

(3.) IT is, therefore, necessary to find out on the evidence and the materials on the record whether the appellants had acted in the exercise of the right of private-defence and whether they are entitled to the benefit of it. IT is not disputed before me that in the first information report the occurrence was alleged to have taken place in the house of Mangu, deceased. The house of the deceased Mangu Ram is shown at No. 9 in the site-plan Ex. P. 3. Later on, the prosecution shifted the place of occurrence to the open courtyard in front of the house of Panna Ram and Nena Ram, appellant. In the site-inspection memo Ex. P. 14 the exact place, where the occurrence was alleged to have taken place, is shown at No. 2 in the site-plan. The prosecution could not give any reasonable explanation for this improvement on its version relating to the place of occurrence. Panna Ram was the maker of the first information report. He was cross-examined on this point and confronted with portion Ke to Khe of his first information report Ex. P. 1, wherein he is alleged to have seen Mangu Ram being beaten by the two appellants inside his courtyard in front of his kitchen. When confronted he mere|y denied to have made the above statement to the police. He was further confronted with and contradicted by portion Ge to Ghe of his report Ex. P. 1, wherein he clearly stated that his wife and the wives of his sons along with Gordhan and Purkha Ram Jats had rescued him. When confronted with this portion he denied to have made the above statement to the police. Likewise, Chhotu, who also was the author of the first information report, when confronted with the aforesaid portions of Ex P. 1 denied to have made the above statements to the police. In the absence of any explanation for shifting the place of occurrence from the side of the makers of the first information report, it may be safely held that the prosecution has suppressed real facts and made improvements on the earliest version given out in the first information report about the place of occurrence and the persons who had come to intervene.