MADHO GURJAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 113/1983 whereby accused-appellant Heera Lal has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellants Madho, Kanwar Lal and Chhitar have been convicted for offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. They are sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ^ 500, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. Accused-appellant Kanwar Lal has also been convicted for offence under Section 324 and accused-appellants Madho, Chhitar and Heera Lal have been convicted for offence under Section 324/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default whereof, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. All the accused-appellants are also convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year each. All the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 8.6.1983 Parasram Son of Heera Lal Banjara submitted a written report at Police Station Mothpur against the six accused persons namely; Bheru Lal, Gulab, Madho, Kanwar Lal, Chittar and Heera Lal. As per the prosecution case, the family of the complainant went outside the village for earning their livelihood and they gave the land namely; 'sundiwale field' to one Kanhaiya Lal on crop sharing basis for cultivation. These persons returned to the village after 5-6 years. When the complainant party left the village, after that accused appellant Bhyeru Lal Gurjar was cultivating the field. In the morning of the date of occurrence, the complainant and his father went to cultivate the field. When they were ploughing the field at about 11.00 AM, all the named six accused persons came there with 'lathies' and 'gandasis' and asked them why they are cultivating the field. The complainant told that the field belongs to him and he has got the patta on his name. Bheru Lal thereafter abused and gave 2-3 blows to his father. The complainant also tried to intervene, then Bheru Lai, Kanwar Lal and Heera Lal gave beating to him as well. His father ran away from the place of occurrence due to fear and did not return till the time of lodging of the F.I.R. The complainant mentioned that he does not know that where he has gone. As per his case, Morpal and one Kanwar Lal were going to take bath on the river at the time of the occurrence and they have witnessed the same. The police on the basis of this information, registered the case against the accused appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 I.P.C. Thereafter when dead body of Heera Lal was found, offence of Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. After investigation the police submitted the charge sheet against all the named accused appellants. The learned Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 I.P.C. The accused appellants denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced 35 documents to prove the case against the accused persons. In defence the accused examined 5 witnesses and produced 3 documents to prove the defence. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above vide judgment dated 7.2.1987.

(3.) Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the conviction of the accused appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 324 and 324/149 I.P.C. is bad in law and against the material available on the record. The learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of Parasram (PW-1), Kanwar Lal (PW-6) and Morpal (PW-7) for convicting the accused appellants. From a bare perusal of the statements of these three witnesses, it is clear that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these three witnesses. Parasram (PW-1) is the real son of deceased Heera Lal. The manner in which this witness has acted, clearly shows that he is not a reliable witness. This witness has made improvements and contradictions in his statement. He has suppressed the true version of the occurrence and also implicated the accused appellants falsely. The statements of Kanwar Lal (PW-6) and Morpal (PW-7) are also not reliable. These two witnesses are chance witnesses and they belong to the caste of the deceased. Their presence at the time of the occurrence is very much doubtful. There was no occasion for them to be present at that time to witness this occurrence. The learned Trial Court has not at all considered this aspect of the case and failed to scrutinise the testimony of these two witnesses.