BHOLU ALIAS HANUMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-appellants, by this appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr. P. C. have sought to challenge the judgment dated 2-11-1985 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur by which they have been convicted and sentenced as under : (See Table on next page)

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a report came to be lodged by Ved Prakash chaturvedi at Police Station Bandikui on 6-12-79. It was stated in the report that his two daughters, namely, Ku. Kamlesh and archana were returning to his residence after taking medicines from the hospital in the evening, at about 7. 45 p. m. Further, it was stated that when his daughters were on sikandra Road, they were assaulted and after raising cry for help they become unconscious. The informant was informed by khatiya Singh and thereafter he reached the place of occurrence. The informant carried his daughters to the hospital for medical assistance. According to the report, the younger daughter of the informant, namely archana, had informed him that about 5-6 persons had assaulted them and she also named Ratan Lal and Prahlad. Thereafter, the informant had lodged the report which was registered as No. 263/79 for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 324, I. P. C.

(3.) AFTER the conclusion of the investigation by the police, the challan came to be filed before the learned Magistrate, Bandikui against 10 persons, including the appellant, for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 341, 354 and 307, I. P. C. The learned Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it came to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. Dausa. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 147, 307 read with Sections 149, 324 and 354, i. P. C. The accused persons denied the <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3744_CRLJ_2008Html1.htm</FRM> charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 13 witnesses and had submitted 28 documents which were duly exhibited. The defence had produced Dr. Shanti mathur (DW-1), a radiologist. They have also produced a report of the radiologist of kamlesh as (Ex.-D/1), which was sent from sms Hospital to the SHO, Police Station bandikui. The statements of the accused persons were then recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The accused Hanuman Prasad and Prahlad have stated in their statements that they have been implicated on account of enmity. It was stated by Hanuman that ved Prakash Chaturvedi, the complainant, was removed from the services of Railways because of the fact that his certificate was found to be false and for that purpose, he had asked for help from his grandfather, who was an officer in the Railways. The grandfather of the accused Hanuman Prasad did not accede to the request of Ved Prakash chaturvedi as the matter was a serious one of forgery. He has also stated that the father of the accused had declined to sell a plot to the complainant and that there was scuffle between the accused Hanuman Prasad and the son of the complainant. According to him, it was for all these reasons that the complainant and his family members bore enmity against the accused which resulted in his implication in the case. The accused Prahlad had stated that a few days before of the occurrence, quarrel had taken place on the football ground between him and Raju, son of the complainant, where Raju was beaten. Thereafter, the complainant himself came to the school, on the next day, and there was verbal altercation between him and the complainant. Therefore, according to the accused-appellant Prahlad, he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The other accused persons stated that all the witnesses are interested persons and they have made false statements and the accused have been falsely roped in.