RAMDHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two appeals: one by the appellant Ramdhan and the other by the appellants Sohan Lal, Prithviraj and Ramswaroop. are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ganganagar dated October 30, 1976, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Ramswaroop under Sections 302, 307 and 307/34, accused Ramdhan under Sections 302/34, 307 and 307/34, I.P.C. and the remaining two Prithviraj and Sohan Lal under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 307/34 -109, I.P.C. and sentenced them to various terms, the longest being the imprisonment for life under Sections 302 or 302 -34 -109, I.P.C.

(2.) PUT briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 4 Maniram, PW 6 Rampratap and the appellant Sohan Lal are real brothers and reside in 5 -C Chhoti Police Station Mathili Rathan district Ganganagar. The deceased -victim Khetpal. aged about 20 years, was the son of PW 4 Maniram. Maniram and the appellant Sohan Lal purchased Murabba No. 10 comprising an area of 25 Bighas situate in Rohi Chak 5 -C Chhoti. Maniram was cultivating 10 Kilas while Sohan Lal was cultivating the remaining 15 Bighas in this Murabba No. 10, as shown in site plan Ex. P 11. In the South of this Murabba runs a Pacca Khala (water channel) as shown in site plan Ex. P 11. Maniram and accused Sohan Lal constructed a Kaccha Khala (water channel) contiguous in the North of Pacca Khala, as shown in Ex. P 11, to take water to their Murabba No. 10. Disputes arose between Maniram and Sohan Lal about the fields of this Murabba, resulting in civil, criminal and revenue litigations between them.

(3.) THE Station House Officer Swaran Ram visited the spot on September 11, 1973, inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P 11. He found two fired and one live cartridges and two wads on the spot. He also found marks of blood on the wall of the channel, but they were not capable of being lifted. The appellants were arrested and in consequence of the informations furnished by them, guns and pistols were recovered. The guns and cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert for scientific examination. The scientific examination revealed that the empty cartridges found on the spot were fired from the gun recovered in consequence of the information furnished by accused Ramswaroop. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a crime report against all the appellants in the Court of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Ganganagar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The cape came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under Sections 302, 302/34 -109, and 307/34 -109, I.P.C. against all of them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Accused Sohan Lal, Prithviraj and Ramdhan denied their complicity in the commission of the offence. According to them, they were not on the spot at the time of the alleged incident. Accused Ram Swaroop advanced a counter story in his statement under Section 313. Cr. P.C. He deposed that at about 9.00 p.m. on September 10, 1973, he and the members of his family were in his Dhani situate in Murabba No. 10. Maniram Khetpal, Rampratap, Budhram and some other persons came there and started firing. He sent his daughter -in -law Smt. Rameshwari to find out what was the matter. The aforesaid persons fired a shot at her, as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries. When the site was inspected by the investigating officer, he had noticed some pellets embedded in the wall of his Dhani. In support of its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution story substantially true and the charges duly proved against the appellants. He found no substance in the defence put forward by them. The appellants were consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against their conviction, they have taken these appeals.