MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Mani Ram has been convicted under Sections 392 and 323, IPC and sentenced to 7 years' riguorous imprisonment and a fine a Rs. 2,000/ - under the first count; and three months' simple imprisonment under the second count by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, by his judgment dated October 7, 1985. He has filed this appeal through jail.

(2.) THE prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on July 24, 1984 at about 4.00 p,m. accused -appellant Mani Ram, along with Madanlal and Ram Swaroop came to the house of Mani Ram, husband of Smt. Ankauri. They enquired about Mani Ram and were told by Mst. Ankauri that he had gone to Jodhpur in connection with some hearing Thereupon, accused Mani Ram told Mst. Ankauri to prepare food for one person. Mst. Ankauri went inside the house and started preparing the food and the accused persons kept sitting outside the house. After sometime, Mst. Ankauri's son Ranveer came out with the food; whereupon, Mani Ram told Ramswaroop and Madanlal to catch hold of him. They, thereupon, caught Ranveer and when Ranveer raised a cry, Mani Ram gave a kick on his face. They then tied down Ranveer and shut him up in a 'Kotha'. On hearing Ranveer's cry, Mst. Ankauri came out. The three accused met her on the way inside the house and asked her to handover whatever valuables she had and told her that they have done away with her son. The accused persons are said to have given beating to Mst. Ankauri and snatched the key of the box from her. It is also alleged that Ramswaroop then went on the roof of the house and started firing and Mani Ram opened the box and took away the valuables and ornaments, the description of which has been mentioned in the FIR which was later on lodged by Ramrakh, elder brother of Mani Ram, the husband of Mst. Ankauri on the next day. It is alleged that on hearing the gun -fires made by Ramswaroop, Bhadar Ram son of Shri Ramrakh was attracted and he came towards the house and saw the accused looting, but on account of fear, he went away and informed his father, whereupon, Ramrakh also came there and he was informed by Mst. Ankauri about this dacoity. In the meantime, accused had fled away with the ornaments in a tractor which was standing in the gate -way of the house. The FIR was lodged by Ramrakh at 3.00 a m. on July 25, 1981 at the Police Station, Tibi. Thereupon, the case was registered and the police started investigation. It is alleged that accused Mani Ram was arrested in connection with some other case of murder, on 25 -7 -1981 and during the course of his personal search, the ornaments said to have been taked away from the house of Mst. Ankauri were recovered from the Bala carried by Maniram. After completion of the investigation, the police put up chalan aginst the accused for offences under Sections 392. 394, 398, 326, 323 read with Section 34, IPC and the accused were committed to the court of Sessions and the case was then transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under Section 392/397, 342 and 323, IPC of also under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Mani Ram and the same charges were framed against the other two accused with the help of Section 34, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried. On the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that so far as Ramswaroop and Madanlal are concerned their name were not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Ramrakh, but as names of Girdhari and Mani Ram were mentioned and that Mst. Ankauri also had not identified Ramswaroop and Mani Ram and, therefore, their presence and participation in the aforesaid offences was not free from doubt. He, therefore, gave them benefit of doubt and acquitted them, but so far as the present appellant Mani Ram is concerned, he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) IT is urged by the learned Amicus Curiae that the prosecution story appears to be wholly doubtful and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly doubted the same, so far as the other accused Madanlal and Ramswaroop are concerned, it cannot be believed against Maniram also. He further pointed out that Maniram's case is further made doubtful on account of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has not relied upon the fact that Ranveer had been beaten or confined by the accused persons and therefore, there was no occasion for Ranveer to raise hue and cry so that his mother Mst. Ankauri could have been attracted. He further urged that similarly the learned Sessions Judge has not believed the evidence of Bhadar Ram and has observed that if Bhadar Ram was present at the spot, he would not have run away. That being so, according to the learned Amicus Curiae the fact of Ramswaroop being informed by Bhadar Ram in the night also becomes doubtful. He, therefore, urges that the accused Maniram should also get the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.