RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30. 01. 1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar whereby the appellant No. 1, Ram Niwas, has been convicted for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'ipc')and has been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a sentence of six months' simple imprisonment in default thereof. THE appellant No. 2, Gheesa Ram, has been convicted of offence under Section 324 of IPC and has been sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Appellant No. 3, Ram Charan, although has been convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC, but has been granted the benefit of probation.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that for an incident which allegedly occurred on 14. 01. 1983, Kedar Lal Sharma (P. W. 1) lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) on 17. 01. 1983 at Police Station Kherli. According to the report, "on the morning of 14. 01. 1983, one Babulal Brahmin came to his house and told him that the goats belonging to the appellant No. 1 had entered into his farm and they were grazing there. Upon this information, the complainant went to his farm, where he found the appellants grazing their goats there. When he told the appellants not to graze their goats, a verbal altercation occurred between the parties. The appellants tried to assault the complainant, but he fled from there. Later on, in the evening, around 5:00 PM, while the complainant was working on his thresher, Gheesa Ram, Ram Charan, Ram Niwas, Sumartha, Chaju Ram came to his house. These persons were carrying lathis, Farsi (axe), sword etc. They all shouted "kill him, kill him" and started to beating him. Ram Niwas hit him over the head with axe. Rest of the peresons hit him with lathis. Gheesa hit him on the right shoulder with tabbal (a blunt weapon ). Hearing his hue and cry, Babu rushed to rescue the complainant. Babu was also assaulted by the appellants. Ram Singh also rushed to rescue the complainant, but he was also assaulted by the appellants. Kishori and Raghuveer intervened and rescued the complainant. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 6/83 (Ex. P/2,) was chalked out for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 326 of IPC. Since, the learned trial Court was of the view that the appellants could be charged for offence under Section 307 of IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court vide its order dated 30. 08. 1983. Subsequently, the appellants were charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307, 326 307/149, 326/149, 324, 323, 323/149 of IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted ten documents. On the other hand, the defence examined a single witness and submitted four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons, Sumartha and Chaju Ram, but convicted the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) IN order to buttress his arguments that delay in loading the FIR leads to certain inference which should be drawn by the Court, the learned counsel has relied upon Lakshmi Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1976 SC 2263 ). Moreover, he has argued that in catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that when the delay is not explained, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.