BHIKHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal emerges from the judgment of Shri B.K.D, Badge, the then Additional Sessions Judge No, 1, Jodhpur, dated July 20, 1966, convicting the accused Bhikla, Roopla, Lachmaina and Kishnia, sons of Bhera, Jat, residents of Abu, under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, and sentencing them each to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution story is like this. Maharaj Bhaktiram, a Guru of the Jat community, lived in the village Ahu, Police Station, Bhojasar. His servant, P.W. 4. Nahera Ram also resided with him. The accused Lachmania was alleged to have kept his own sister, as his mistress. This act of Lachmanina enraged the Jat community. Subsequently, the Jats of the surrounding villages assembled together, Maharaj Bhaktiram also praticipated in the deliberation of the community meeting. The Jats eventually excommunicated Lachmania along with his three brothers, Bhikla, Roopla, and Kishnia. For this reason the accused persons began to bear grudge against Maharaj Bhaktiram. On October 12, 1965, Bhaktiram went along with his camel to his agricultural land, known as Sunaronwala field, for fetching Bajra stalks. When he was returning with his camel, loaded with Bajra stalks, he passed through the land of the accused. There he was confronted defiantly by the accused. They all administered severe beating to him with sticks. Amana Ram s/o Asu P.W. 6, and Amana Ram, s/o Kistura P.W. 8, witnessed the occurrence. Amana Ram P.W. 6 beseeched the accused not to beat the Maharaj Thereupon Bhikla told him that the Maharaj would not be left alive and that if he intervened, he too would meet the same fate. Amana Ram, P.W. 6, then informed of this happening to Bhera Ram, P.W. 9 the 'Chela' of the Maharaj. Dana Ram was also apprised of the whole incident. Bhera Ram went to the spot. He saw the accused throwing earth on the nose of the Maharaj to find out whether he was still alive and perceiving that there was same life left in him, the accused again belaboured him relentlessly with sticks till he breathed his last. P.W. 1 Dana Ram approached the Police Station, Bhojasar and lodged first information report Ex. P, on October 13, 1965 at 9 A.M. In the meantime accused Bhikla and Roopla went to the 'Dhani' of the Maharaj and entrusted Maharaj's camel to Nahera Ram. P.W. 4 stateting that the Maharaj had already been uprooted and was lying in the field and that he should be brought home in a cart. In the course of investigation, P.W. 12 Devilal, S.H.O. Bhojasar, went to the spot and prepared site inspection memo Ex. P.5, site plan Ex. P.6 description memo of the corpse Ex. P.7, inquest report Ex. P.8, seizure memo of blood stained clothes and shoes of the deceased Ex. P.10. Accused Bhika was arrested on October 13, 1965. A blood stained 'Bandi' was seized from his possession vide Ex. P.11. The rest of the accused person were arrested on October 16, 1965. In the course of investigation Bhika furnished information in regard to his concealing the weapon of the offence. The information was reduced into writing and is marked Ex. P. 17. In consequence of this information the police recovered a blood stained lathi at the instance of the accused Bhika memo Ex. P. 12. Both the 'Bandi' and the lathi were examined by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. The report of the Chemical Examiner was that both the articles were positive for blood; vide Ex. P.23. According to the Serologist, the two articles were stained with human blood vide Ex. P.24. Autopsy of the dead body of Bhaktiram was conducted by Dr. Ram Narain Parihar, Medical Officer, Phalodi. The following injuries wefe noticed on his person:

(3.) WE first take up the case of Roopla, Lachmania and Kishnia. First information report Ex. P.1 was filed by Dana Ram P.W. 1 on October 13, 1965 at 9 a.m. On interrogation made by the Police, Dana Ram first named only Bhikla etc. as had been disclosed to him by Amana, son of Asu, and not other accused persons. Amania had informed Bhera Ram, P.W. 9, of the happening and not Dana Ram. P.W. 1 Amana Ram, P.W. 6, has categorically stated that he gave information to Bhera Ram and not to anybody else. Both Bhera Ram and Dana Ram have pointedly stated that they were not the authors of the first information report and that it was written by one Vaidhyaraj. Bhere Ram has further said that he did not give its contents to the Vaidhyaraj. The alleged scribe of the report Vaidhyaraj has not been examined by the prosecution. Danaram has also stated that he was at a distance of about 100 paundas from the place where the report was got written. It is thus not clear as to who was the author of the first information report. No adverse inference, therefore, can be drawn against the accused Roopla, Lachmania, and Kishnia on the basis of the contents of Ex. P.1. It may also be mentioned that the object of the provisions as to first information report is to obtain early information of the alleged criminal activities, to record the circumstances before there is time to be forgoten or embellished, and it has to be remembered that the report can be put in evidence when the informant is examined if it is desired to do so, vide Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18. In this case Ex. P.1 being the earliest version of the the event is not of very material help to the prosecution in so far as the involvement of the accused Roopla, Lachmania, and Kishnia in the crime is concerned.