SUNDA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Sunda, Balia, Chandra, Ganpat, Kishna, Ganga son of Jiwan, Hanuman, Padma, Murli, Ganga son of Kana and Barji were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in connection with an occurrence dated 3rd May, 1972 which took place in village Pujari-bas at Dhani Jamnasagar. Place of occurrence is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Srimadhopur. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is half a mile. In this incident six persons on the side of the complainant, namely, Jodhraj (since deceased), Rameshwar, Jagdisb, Ramavtar, Jhunthalal and Mathura were injured. In the same incident accused Balia, Hanuman and Mst. Birji were also injured. Jddhraj was shifted at the hospital Srimadhopur for medical aid but in the way he succumbed to his injuries. The first information report of this occurrence Ex. P. 10, was recorded at the police station, Srimadhopur on the same day at 12.30 p. m. i. e. within 21/2 hours of the occurrence. This first information report was recorded on the basis of the written report Ex. P. 8 lodged by P. W.1 Ramavtar. Autopsy on the dead body of Jodhraj was performed by P. W. 16 Dr. Ramakant Purohit. The post-mortem report is Ex.P. 1. Dr. Ramakant noticed following external injuries on the dead body of Jodhraj:

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the statements of P. W. 3 Ramehshwar and P. W. 5 Radha Kishan to be unreliable. He, however, held that in spite of minor contradictions appearing in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses, the substratum of their statement was reliable. He further held that the presence of the injured eye-witnesses on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. Placing reliance on their statements corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(RAJ)5_19781.html</FRM> All the sentences of the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass and we are not required to deal in detail the prosecution evidence and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to prove their case, because the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellants, keeping in view the preponderance of prosecution evidence, has rightly submitted that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the fact that the assault did take place in the manner and at the place alleged by the prosecution, and in that event Jodh Singh sustained injuries as a result of which he met his death. However, we have also looked into the relevant portion of the evidence and are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond any manner of reasonable doubt and the learned counsel has rightly discarded the defence evidence.