SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE persons lost their lives and seven sustained injuries in an incident occurred on March 10, 2001 in village Tidhariya Police Station Todabhim. Surjeet Singh, Suresh Singh and Deshraj, appellants herein, along with fourteen co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 31, 2007 while acquitting co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- u/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/ -. in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month. Deshraj u/s. 302 and Suresh & Surjeet u/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months. u/s. 307 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for three months. Deshraj: u/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that on March 10, 2001 around 5 PM while the informant Balveer (PW. 14) and other members of complainant party were watering the field as many as 29 assailants of village Peelwa (named in the FIR) came over there armed with guns and deadly weapons and made assault. Jogendra Singh fired at Kartar Singh, Khushi Ram fired at Sahab Singh, Deshraj fired at Hoshiyar Singh, Chandu fired at Gopi, Suresh fired at Vishal, Man Singh fired at Damo, Ummedi Devi inflicted sword blows on the person of Kartar, Reshmi Devi inflicted sword blow on Mukut, Surjeet fired at Samunder, Deshraj fired at Chiroji. Other assailants caused blows with lathi, Dharia and sword, Kartar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh and Sahab Singh died on the spot and Damo, Vishan, Gunji, Samandar Mukut, Chiroji Devi, Chatar Singh received injuries. On that report a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 and 447 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead bodies were subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli. Charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 25 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions while granting benefit of doubt to co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the FIR lodged by complainant is highly suspected document being ante- time and ante-dated. It being post investigation document is hit by section 162 Crpc and inadmissible in evidence. The FIR was sent to the Court of Magistrate after an inordinate delay which is strong non-compliance of section 157 Crpc. It was next contended that the version of FIR is deliberated which cannot be paid any credence. Even complainant Balbir Singh admitted the factum that case was lodged/registered after due confabulations. The deceased and injured persons were working together at the time of incident seems to be highly dubious from the attending facts and circumstances of the case. The complainant party was also indulging in firing on accused persons. It was further urged that independent witnesses were not produced by the prosecution and only interested witnesses have been examined. Testimony of alleged eye witnesses is riddled with numerous incongruencies and embellishments rendering the same to be highly dubious in character. Recovery of gun had not been proved with the aid of cogent and convincing evidence. The deceased and the injured were harden criminals and on the Holi festival the complainant party teased young woman and in fact it was the cause of incident. In support of the submissions learned counsel placed reliance on Suresh Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar (2003) 4 SCC 128, Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab JT 2003 (Supp. 1) SC 117, State of AP vs. Punati Ramulu 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 590, Surendra Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Uttaranchal JT 2006 (5) SC 213 and Suresh Rai vs. State of Bihar JT 2000 (4) SC 12.