BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 13.07.2009 and another order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated below:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) submitted a written report at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Exhibit P-7) on 22.07.2007 alleging therein that on 21.07.2007, his close relatives viz. Rakesh Kumar Meena and Manish were assaulted by Balwan, Banwari, Malkhan, Vicky, Ashu, Ravi, Kamlesh, Dhanni Ram, Shriram Meena, Khilli Meena and 5-7 other persons. He further alleged that due to the injuries, Rakesh had lost his life on the same day. On the basis of aforesaid written report, FIR No. 221/2007 (Exhibit P-8) was registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar for offence under Sections 143, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, prepared site plan, got injured Manish medically examined. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh only against Shriram, Dhaniram @ Dhanno, Banwari Lal @ Gandhi and Balwan Singh. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against accused Malkhan before the court concerned. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherefrom it was made over to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, which framed the charges against accused Shriram; accusedappellants Dhanni Ram @ Dhanno; Banwari Lal @ Gandhi and Malkhan for offence under Sections 148, 323-323/149, 324/149, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and against accused-appellant Balwan Singh for offence under Sections 148, 323-323/149, 324, 307, 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Indian Arms Act. The accused Shriram and accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to secure conviction of the accusedappellants, produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they alleged false implication. In defence, no witness was produced, but nine documents were exhibited. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2009, while acquitting accused Shriram of the charges framed against him, convicted the accused-appellants, but passed the order of sentence only against accused-appellants Balwan Singh; Malkhan; Dhanni Ram, in the manner indicated above. Since the accused-appellant Banwari Lal was not present before the trial court on the aforesaid date, order of his sentence was passed by the trial court on 16.02.2010, when he was produced before the trial court. He has also been sentenced in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Balwan Singh argued that impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court is bad in eye of law, against the material and evidence available on record. The trial court while convicting the accused-appellant ignored the principle of criminal jurisprudence and failed to consider that the author of the first information report, i.e. Ram Khiladi (P.W.5) is not a trustworthy witness because he mentioned names of number of persons as accused of the crime but the police after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet only against five or six persons, which proves malafide intention of the complainant. The trial court without considering this important aspect of the matter has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. It is argued that the trial court has not considered an important aspect of the case that even though a detailed report was submitted by the star witness of the prosecution Ram Khiladi (P.W.5), there was no specific allegation levelled against the present appellant at the initial stage in the first information report (Exhibit P-7). After that the allegations were levelled against the present appellant with ulterior motive, which shows the complete collusion in between the parties.