RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are criminal appeals under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 30 -8 -1984 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:

(2.) IN Parcha Bayan, Ex. P 1, injured Moji Ram stated that on 10 -6 -1983 at night, he Ram Rai, Jagdish and Laxmi Narain, all belonging to village Rambha, were sleeping near their well. About' 10 -12 days earlier there was quarrel between them and accused Chhitar Jat. On account of that quarrel, about 1.00 a.m. Ram Chandra s/o Bhagota, Chittar s/o Birdha, Bheru s/o Khana, Rama s/o Onkar, Ram Karan s/o Badri and Kedar s/o Birdi Jat all residents of village Arniya and two other came armed with sticks and Gandasies. Chhitar and Kedar had Gandasies in their hands and others were armed with sticks. They all came and started beating them. Kedar and Chhitar struck Jagdish with Gandasies and others gave beating with sticks and Gandasies to all of them. He also described the injuries received by the persons and stated that Jagdish and Laxmi Narain received serious injuries On their shouting Rodu, Ram Jiwan, Bajrarg Jat came there, where upon the accused persons ran away. Thereafter all the 4 injured went in a bullock cart to the hospital at Nivai, where Jagdish died soon after. On this Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case and investigation commenced. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against accused Ram Karan under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C.; Kedar under Sections 302/149, 323/149, I.P.C. and 324/149 I.P.C. and against Jagdish, Ramba and Nathu under Sections 332/149, 323/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge after recording the statement of Moji Ram, took cognizance against Ram Chandra, Chitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas and they were also summoned for standing their trial. After the recording of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge acquitted Jagdish, Rambha (Rama) and Nathu, but convicted and sentenced the above named 6 accused appellants as indicated above.

(3.) MR . Tibrewal learned Counsel appearing for appellant Ram Karan has urged that the incident took place in village Rambha during mid night of 9/10th June, 1983 at about 1.00 a.m. It was dark night and there was no source of light at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it was not possible for the eye -witnesses to clearly see and recognize the persons, who came to assult them. He contends that in the Parcba Bayan (Ex. P 1), which is treated as an FIR, there is no mention clearly about the alleged dispute between the parties. Mere mentioning that there was a dispute few days back, does not give any indication of enmity, which is alleged in Ex. P 1. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the FIR has been lodged after delay of about 7 hours, which could have been filed soon after the occurrence to give the correct version of the incident and inspire confidence. It is farther contended that accused appellant Ram Karan has been implicated on account of enmity with the deceased who had brought Ram Karan's wife in Nata about 6 -7 months prior to the incident. It is pointed out that PW 2 Laxmi Narain, who is father of deceased Jagdish and has also been examined as an eye witness, has given different time of the incident and as per his statement there were only 4 persons and has also stated that he cannot say as to why Jagdish was assaulted. This witness has also stated that he is 70 years old and could not see properly. It is, therefore, urged that no motive to commit the crime has been established.