RAMCHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Ramcharan challenging judgment and order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 06.10.2010 at 9.10 P.M. a 'parcha bayan' was given by one Narendra Malav, H.C. 328, Police Line, Baran, to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Baran, stating therein that when he was making entries in 'rojnamcha' at the Police Line, accused Ramcharan, who was constable, came there with rifle and fired at him. Bajrang Singh, H.C., and other staff members, were also present there. Accused had fired at him at 8.45 PM on that day with the intention to commit his murder. The injured sustained fire arm injuries. The injuries were on left ribs with exit wound on its right side with blood. The informant stated that as usual he was on night duty. Accused Ramcharan was also on duty as magazine guard. Accused Ramcharan entered his room stating that informant had made an adverse report in his service record 3-4 days ago and that he (accused) would finish him. The police, on the basis of 'parcha bayan', registered regular F.I.R. No.574/2010 (Exhibit P-42) and commenced investigation. Soon after giving 'parcha bayan' but before registration of F.I.R., the injured succumbed to injuries. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Baran, wherefrom the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran for trial. Since that Court was abolished later on, therefore, the case was made over to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran. Trial Court framed charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant which he denied and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced 31 witnesses and got 51 documents exhibited. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein he stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. Though no witness was produced in defence, but 12 documents were got exhibited. The trial court, on completion of trial, convicted the accused-respondent in the manner as indicated above.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the accusedappellant has argued that rojnamcha entry (Exhibit P-38) of 19th September, 2010 has been produced by the prosecution to prove the motive of the appellant for opening fire at the deceased. Perusal of the aforesaid exhibit shows that if at all there could be any grievance, it would be against Heera Chand (P.W.26) who made the complaint. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the deceased made adverse entry in the rojnamcha, is not substantiated. Many documents were said to be lying on the table of the deceased but none of them has been produced to prove that they pertained to the appellant. Bajrang Singh (P.W.2) has stated that he sent the deceased Narendra Malav in Chetak vehicle to the hospital, but no witness has come forward to say that he accompanied Narendra Malav in that vehicle and took him to hospital. Reliance has been wrongly placed by the trial court upon testimony of Ashok Kumar (P.W.6) and Jaswant Singh (P.W.7). According to Bajrang Singh (P.W.2), none of them was present at the time of incident in the police line. In fact, Bajrang Singh (P.W.2) has stated that both of them came after hearing sound of gun. Therefore, aforesaid two witnesses could not have been relied as eye witness. Shambhu Dayal (P.W.4), Hawaldar in Police Line, Baran has stated that he was in-charge of duties and according to him appellant Ramcharan was on duty from 3.00 to 6.00 P.M., but the learned trial court failed to appreciate that neither roll call register, nor any duty certificate has been produced. It is argued that learned trial court has not properly appreciated statement of Ashok Kumar (P.W.6) as to whether he was on duty or not. No duty register has been produced to prove so. In cross-examination, Ashok Kumar (P.W.6) stated that he was on duty as Coath Assistant on 06.10.2010 in Police Line, Baran, but no document has been produced to prove that he actually was on duty at the relevant time. According to Jaswant Singh (P.W.7), no duty register has been produced to prove that he was present in the police line at the relevant time. Conviction of the accused-appellant has thus been recorded on the basis of sketchy and uncorroborated evidence.