MAKHAN ALIASMAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicting the appellant u/s 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) PURAN Singh (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Raja Kheda, on 22. 3. 1981, at about 7 PM, stating therein that he along with Amar Singh (PW-1), Ranjeet Singh (PW-2), Ramdas (PW-4), and the deceased Ram Singh had gone to see wrestling, in Village Jarah, and stood up by the side of accused Makhan and Ram Bharose. The wrestling came to an end at about 4. 30 p. m. When they were returning, accused Makhan and Ram Bharose asked them to come with them to their house and enjoy sweets as it was Holi. Thereupon, Amar Singh, Ranjeet Singh and deceased Ram Singh, went alongwith Makhan and Ram Bharose, whereas PURAN Singh and Ramdas left for their village Jaitpur and stayed at the flour mill of Nawab Singh. Makhan and Ram Bharose offered meals to Amar Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Ram Singh (deceased ). Ram Bharose took the double barrel gun which was being carried by deceased Ram Singh, and thereupon, it is alleged, accused Makhan asked Ram Bharose to fire and shouted 'de SAALE CHAMRE MEIH' as Layak Singh was got murdered by him, and that he will get other Thakurs also murdered, whereupon Ram Bharose fired on the back of Ram Singh, as a result of which he died on the spot. Amar Singh and Ranjeet Singh ran away due to fear. Meanwhile, PURAN Singh and Ramdas came to the house of Makhan and saw that Makhan and Ram Bharose were dragging the dead body of Ram Singh outside the house of Makhan.

(3.) HE has further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to connect the gun with the crime because in the report (Ex. P. 23), submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, it had only been mentioned that the rifle was in working order and had been fired through but no opinion on the time of its last firing could, however, be given. Similarly, it further discloses that the fired cartridge which was recovered, could be fired from the rifle but a definite opinion could not be given for want of sufficient characteristic marks.