HAZARA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hazara Singh, Sayan Singh, Phool Singh and Banwari Lal appellants, who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for the offence under Sec. 395 read with Sec. 397 IPC and each of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, have preferred these appeals, one represented, i.e. No. 617/1974 and the other from Jail i.e. No. 634/1974. The prosecution case in brief is that in the evening of 12.10.1972 at about 6.30 p.m. 8 or 10 persons came to the house of Gopi in village Sukh -ram -ka -bas in order to commit dacoity duly armed with guns, sword pistol & lathis and they began to fire guns, three of the dacoits entered into his kotha and began to collect his moveables. One of them remained on guard at the gate of the house. Man Singh, Lalchand Karansingh and other tried to capture them and in that they suffered injuries from pistol, gun, sword and lathis. Mst. Geeta, Mst. Sheokori, Mst. Bhateri and Sheo Prasad also came there and threw bricks on the dacoits and gave them beating. Some of the dacoits were also injured and one of them died at the spot while others ran away and they were chased. However one other dacoit who too was badly injured was captured and was brought back and he also died and others made good their escape Gopi lodged an oral report with the Police Station Surajgarh which is about 5 miles away from the village Sukhram -ka -bas at about 9 p.m. on the day of occurrence i.e. on 12.10.1972 that when he returned from Surajgarh to his house, he found Sheo Parashad & Nanchi Daryasingh, Maningh, Lalchand, Karan Singh and Thanaram in the injured condition Besides one Punjabi and a Sikh were also lying dead He gathered that 8 or 10 persons came to his house in order to commit dacoity and fired guns and looted the movables from his kotha. When they were intervened, they suffered injuries. Two of the dacoits were badly injured, one fell down and died at the spot the other was also chased and brought back and he also fell down and died. On this report a case was registered and the Investigating Officer reached the spot on that very night. In the next morning he obtained a list of articles taken away by the dacoits from Gopi P.W. 8 and thereafter he started investigation of the case He seized two purses from there and one of them contained arm licence which showed that the dacoits may be residents of Fatiyabad District Thereafter, he went to Fatiyabad on October 16, 1972. and apprehended three accused on dated October 25, 1972 He again went to Fatiyabad and apprehended two more accused. Two accused Kushal Singh and Bantasingh were found to be absconding. The arrested accused persons other than Prabhu (who was charged under Sec. 120B and was acquitted) were put to test identification parade by the witnesses On the information of Banwari accused certain clothes Articles 3 to 6, which were said to have been taken by the dacoits were recovered and identified by the witnesses before the IInd Class Magistrate Chirawa After completing the investigation the appellants along with Prabhu were challaned in the court of Munsif Magistrate Chirawa and two other accused Kushal Singh and Banta Singh were shown to be absconding in the challan. The Magistrate after holding the committal proceedings, committed the appellants to face their trial for the offence under Sec. 395/397, 398 and 307 IPC and accused Prabhu was also committed for the offence under Sec. 120B read with 395, 397, 398 and 307 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. The accused persons denied the prosecution case and pleaded that they have falsely been implicated in the case. The defence version was that Gopi sold a chamar lady (wife of Matu) to Inder Singh and Banta Singh but she did not stay there. Therefore, Inder Singh and Banta Singh along with others came there to send back that lady or refund the amount of Rs. 7,300/ - paid in lieu of her. In that incident two Punjabis died at the hands of the family members of Gopi and in order to save their liability this false version has been concocted. It Was also pleaded that they were shown to the prosecution witnesses. However, they did not lead any defence. After trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Prabhu accused against whom the prosecution case was that though he was not present on the spot at the time of commission of the dacoity yet it was suspected that he might have managed the dacoity as he came to borrow some money from Gopi a few days before the occurrence along with two unknown persons out of which one was identified to be Banwari The learned Sessions Judge held that from the evidence produced on record it cannot be said that Prabhu abated the commission of the dacoity. He, therefore, acquitted the accused Prabhu and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case.