PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 374 Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 23. 7. 1985, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, alwar, in Sessions Case No. 7/85, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under: u/s 326 read with 149, IPC 3 years r. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default of payment of fine, one month's r. I. U/s 323, read with 149, IPC 6 months r. I. and a fine of Rs. 50 each, in default of payment of fine, 15 days R. I. U/s 324/149, IPC 1 year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default of payment of fine, one month's R. I. U/s 325, read with 149, IPC 2 years r. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default of payment of fine, one month's r. I. U/s 148, IPC 1 year's R. I. and fine of rs. 100 each, and in default of payment of fine, one month's R. I.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that, an incident had taken place on 12. 11. 1984 at 06:a. m. , and a report with regard to the same had been lodged by Dayoda (PW/2) at police Station Rajgarh. The said report was registered as an F. I. R. No. 214/84 for the offences U/s 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 i. P. C. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and police filed challan against the accused-appellant for the offences U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 302 I. P. C. The case was then committed before the court of Sessions alwar wherein the charges were framed against the accused-appellants, who denied the same and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution produced 14 witnesses before the trial court. Out of the said witnesses Shiyaram, PW/4, Sukhpal pw/5 and Bhikam Singh PW/7 were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 cr. P. C. were recorded who denied the commission of the offences as well as the their involvement in the alleged occurrence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned court held that no offence under Section 302/149 I. P. C. had been proved against the accused-appellant. However, the learned trial court while passing the judgment on 23. 07. 1985 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in passing the impugned order whereby convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant whereas the substantial part of the evidence of the prosecution was not supported by their own witnesses, as for instance, PW4, 5 and 7. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. As regards the remaining witnesses, the learned counsel submits that they were all highly interested persons and therefore their testimony should have been discarded by the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that the statements of the other witnesses suffer from serious infirmities and material contradictions and on that count the learned trial court should have rejected their testimony muchless to say record the finding on that basis. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and the learned trial Court has itself held that it has not been conclusively proved as to who amongst the accused-appellants had inflicted injury by the sharp edged weapon. Therefore, it has been submitted that the offence under Section 326 read with 149 I. P. C. is also not made out in the instant case. It has also been submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the formation of unlawful assembly by the accused-appellants and as such provision under Section 149 I. P. C. is not at all attracted.