RAMPHOOL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated Oct. 31, 1975 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Sec. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of the payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.

(2.) The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that Ramphool appellant was an out-law required by the police in a case registered against him under Sec. 307/34 I.P.C. On Dec. 18, 1973 the police party consisting of PW 5 Babu Singh, PW 6 Abdul Shakbor, PW 9 Guman Singh, PW 11 Nizamuddinand PW 12 Abdul Mannan was patrolling on the upper edge of the Nala near the mines of village Lava. They noticed that accused-appellant Ramphool, who was shown an absconder in case No. 20 registered under Sec. 307/34 I. P. C., was loitering on she lower edge of the Nala. The police party chased him and when they came nearer to Ramphool, he with an intention to kill the members of the raiding party, fired two shots at them and then the police fired in self defence, but Ramphool could make good his escape and went inside the dense forest. A frantic search was made for the accused. During the course of the search a mufler art. 1 belonging to the accused was seized by the police. Later on the accused-appellant was apprehended. A first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Mandrail, Camp Bankari on Dec. 19, 1973. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused under Sec. 307 I. P. C. in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. After commitment the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom five witnesses were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence.

(3.) The accused denied his complicity in the crime in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C., but did not examine any witness in his defence.