MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the judgment dated 18. 10. 84 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota whereby the learned judge has convicted them for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (`ipc' for short) and has sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and directed them to further undergo a simple imprisonment of six months in default of payment of the fine.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that statement of Mohan Lal (PW. 1) was recorded on 29. 8. 79 in the hospital by Bashir Mohammed, Sub-Inspector and were entered into a `rojnamacha'. On the same day, on the basis of the `rojnamacha', a formal FIR was registered for offence under Sections 452, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and against to other co-accused persons namely Santosh Kumar and Prithviraj. According to the FIR, the complainant's father, Goverdhan Sahai and his elder brother, Bharat Kumar, were sitting in their shop located at Bazar No. 1, Ramganj Mandi, Kota. Around 1. 15 P. M. , the complainant was returning to the shop after picking up `pan'. When he reached near the shop, he saw that Mohan Lal Soni, Telephone Operator, Santosh Kumar, Suresh Kumar Luthra and Prithviraj had entered in the shop and were assaulting his father, his brother and his maternal uncle. He rushed to their rescue. Suresh inflicted a knife blow on his back. Mohan Lal Soni struck his father on his back with a knife. Suresh Kumar struck his brother, Bharat, on his side with a knife. He further claimed that the accused persons had assaulted others with knife also. He further alleged that the accused appellants were carrying two big knifes with them. According to him Lal Chand, Ramniwas, Laxman Lal Maheshwari, Praveen Chadn and Daya Ram and others rushed to their rescue. THEreupon, the accused appellants ran away from the place. According to him this incident had taken place because of an old animosity which has existed because of certain matrimonial disputes between the families.

(3.) BOTH the complainant party and the accused appellants are in agreement that the alleged occurrence had occurred at 1. 15 in the afternoon. In the FIR lodged by Mohan Lal (PW. 1) he had claimed that the assault had taken place inside the shop. However, neither Mohan Lal (PW. 1) nor Bharat Kumar (PW. 2) nor Govardhan Sahai (PW. 3) stated in their testimony before the Court that the assault had occurred inside the shop. In fact Laxman Das (PW. 4) clearly states that the assault had occurred outside the shop. According to the site plan the assault had occurred inside the shop. But the site plan has not been supported by the witness of site plan, namely Jayanti (PW. 13 ). Thus, there is an ambiguity about the place of occurrence. Even the learned trial Court had concluded, and according to this Court rightly so, that there is an uncertainty about the place of occurrence. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the actual place of occurrence.