RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5 -2 -1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur has taken cognizance against 8 accused persons namely Ramchandra, Genaram, Chokha Ram, Bhuraram, Bagaram, Bhanwaruram, Mufaram and Sonaram Under Section 302, 149, 148, 147 IPC, on the application of Khuram dated 22 -10 -1982, 8 persons were challaned and evidence was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. On the basis of statements of Bhuraram PW 4 and Sajanram PW 5 cognizance has been taken. They stated that in all there were 16 accused persons 12 on tractor and 4 on foot. The informant Bharuram was not an eye -witness as these two witnesses in their deposition gave out the names of the 8 persons also who were not prosecuted so cognizance was taken against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) I have perused the statements of these two witnesses recorded by the police Ex. D 1 of Bharuram and Ex. D 3 of Sajanram. In their police statements these witnesses have not stated that in all there were 16 persons 12 on tractor and 4 on foot. In their statements the names of 9 accused persona appear, The name of Bhura s/o Chokharam appears in their statements so far as Bhuraram s/o Chokha is concerned statements of these witnesses are consistent but so far remaining 7 accused persons are concerned against whom cognizance is taken, it may be stayed that their names do not appear in the police statements of Bharuram and Sajanram nor in FIR there is number or that names. The veracity of these two witnesses can also be examined in the light of the injury report. The deceased in all sustained 8 injuries all were by blunt object except injury Nos. 1 and 2 others were simple injury. The cause of death was injury on the scalp that is the injury No. 1. It is not the case of these witnesses that the accused persons against whom cognizance was taken were not known to them. Neither there is number of accused persons in their statements. It appears that the names of seven accused is a distinct improvement made by the witnesses. Simply because they have stated names of these seven accused persons at the trial, can be no reason for taking cognizance if the matter is examined taking into account all possible circumstances including the number and nature of the injuries. Normally when there is some material, cognizance can be taken on that material. Here before the Additional Sessions Judge there were the statements of two witnesses. 1 have considered the matter in its entirely, in my opinion, the circumstances do not warrant for taking cognizance against seven accused persons namely Ramchandra, Gena Ram, Chokharam, Begaram, Bhanwaruram Mularam and Sonaram.