HUKAMSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of conviction by the accused appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanu-mangarh vide his judgment dated 23. 12. 1980 has convicted the accused appel-lants under Section 302 read with section 149 I. P. C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment. He has also convicted all the four accused appellants under Section 450 I. P. C. and sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of line to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Appellant Sahab Singh was also convicted under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that P. W. 1 Jeet Kaur wife of deceased Dilipsingh filed a first information report at police station Sangari> a on 10. 7. 1979 at 5 A. M. It was disclosed by her in the first information report that deceased Dilipsingh and accused Mahendra Singh had a dispute regarding non-payment of Rs. 1,500/ -. On account of this monetary dispute, Mahendra Singh was given beating by her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law. On account of this Mahendra Singh has filed a first information report Ex. P. 5 at police station, Sangariya. A challan was filed in that case, but a compromise was arrived at between both the parties. However, both the parties were not happy about this compromise. On 9. 7. 1979 at 7. 30 P. M. in the evening deceased Dilip Singh and P. W. 2 Ramsingh who is her husband's cousin brother were taking the dinner in her house at village Fatehpur. All the accused persons namely, Hukam Singh armed with a pistol, Sahabsingh armed with a gun, Charansingh armed with a 12 bore gun Mahendrasingh armed with a single barrel and Kundansingh armed with lathi came at the house and exhorted that we will have to settle the dispute of Mahendrasingh. THEreafter, they pulled Dilipsingh and dragged him towards the house of accused Mahendrasingh. Ramsingh P. W. 2 tried to prevent the accused persons from dragging him, but without any result. She also shouted for help. Her cries attracted Jhandasingh s/o Sohansingh, Sundersingh s/o Khel Singh on the scene. When Charansingh saw these persons, coming up he immediately fired a shot on the chest of the deceased with the gun. At that time, Hukam Singh, Mahendrasingh, and Kundansingh had caught hold of the deceased Dilip Singh. Soon as he was struck with the bullet he fell down and died. THE accused thereafter took to their heels. THEreafter, she left one Daulatram to look after the dead body of the deceased and she took the tractor of the Sarpanch and reached at the police station to lodge the first information report. On the basis of this first information report, a case under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 452 I. P. C. was registered against the accused persons. THE police reached at the scene of occurrence and took up the investigation. THE dead body of the deceased was immediately seized and sent for post mortem. THEreafter, on the information furnished by accused Charansingh a 12 bore gun was recovered at his instance and the same was sealed. Likewise a single barrel gun was recovered at the instance of accused Sahabsingh. One more pistol which was lying at the scene was also seized. THEse articles were sent for chemical examination and the blod stained clothes were also sent to the Serologist. After close of the investigation, the police filed a challan against all the five accused persons. But during the trial accused Charansingh died. THErefore, trial proceeded against the remaining four accused persons. THE prosecution examined about 13 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. THE accused denied the commission of the offence. THE case was ultimately committed to the court of Sessions. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment dated 23. 12. 1980 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this the accused appellants preferred the present appeal before this court.

(3.) NEXT is the testimony of P. W. 2 Ramsingh, the other eye-witness. It has been pointed out that this witness was not prevent at the scene of occurrence and he has no occasion to be at the scene of occurrence and he has no occasion to be at the scene of occurrence and to witness the incident. P. W. 2 Ramsingh has deposed that he and deceased Dilipsingh first had their bath at the canal and thereafter came to the house of the deceased. Ramsingh is a distant relation of the deceased. Therefore his going to the house of the deceased and taking food in the evening with the deceased cannot be said to be unusual. It is also argued by the learned counsel that he is a tutored witness, as he did not help Mst. Jeet Kaur in any manner. It is wrong to say that this witness did not assist Jeet Kaur. On the contrary, he has deposed that he accompanied Jeet Kaur to the house of Sarpanch from there the tractor was taken and then they were taken to the police station. Thus, Ramsingh P. W. 2 did help Jeet Kaur in enabling her to go to the house of Sarpanch Sher Mohd and from there they went to the police station. P. W. 2 Ramsingh has also deposed that he has received injuries from the butt of the gun and his injuries were also examined. Thus, the presence of Ramsingh at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. Learned counsel has also urged that in fact Ramsingh has unnecessarily involved Sahabsingh that he exhorted the accused persons that rescuer of deceased Dilipsingh has come therefore shot him immediately. But since the testimony of Ramsingh appears to be reliable one and it corroborates the version given out by Jeet Kaur he cannot be treated as unreliable.