JANKI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dt 31-3-87 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Baran by which, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: - Janki Lal : Under Section 302 I. P. C. and all other under Sec. 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine three months rigorous imprisonment. Heera Lal : Under Section 307 I. P. C. and all others under Sec. 307/149 IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine one month rigorous imprisonment. All the accused appellants u/s. 148 IPC sentenced to one year R. L All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BANSHI Lal (P. W 13) lodged a report on 22-10-85 at 4 p. m. at Police Station, Chhipa Barod alleging that in the day at 1 p. m. he and all the village people assembled at the Chabutra of Hanumanji for Pooja on the occasion of Vijay Dashmi. Previously some quarrel had taken place between him and Kishan Lal and his two sons and on account of that enmity Mathura Lal S/o Kishan Lal & Sri Lal S/o Manohar Lal started abusing them. He asked them not to abuse. Then Mathura Lal, Heera Lal, Srilal, Kishan Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Ram Ratan, BANSHI, Ram Singh and Ram Dayal uttered the words while, abusing that he should be finished today. Heera Lal inflicted ballam blow on his chest. Mathura Lal inflicted ballam blow on his buttock. Heera again inflicted another ballam blow on the left hand. Ram Singh & Ram Dayal inflicted lathi blows on his wrist. Kanhaiya Lal inflicted lathi blow on his fight hand. His son Murli came to rescue him but Sri Lal inflicted gandasi blow on his head, Heeralal inflicted ballam blow on the left side of the body and Ram Ratan inflicted gandasi blow on waist and right ribs. Thereafter, Sri Lal S/o Harlal Vaad also tried to rescue them but BANSHI Lal and Sri Lal gave gandasi blows to him. On account of this beating ail the three fell down. Kedar S/o Prabhu Lal brought them to Chhipa Barod in a tractor. This incident was witnessed by BANSHI S/o Onkar, BANSHI s/o Laxman & Nathu s/o Deo Lal. On this report a case u/ss. 147, 148, 307, 323 and 149 IPC was registered. Murli later on died and the case was then converted into Section 302 IPC.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments at length and perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses minutely. Banshi Lal (PW 13) lodged the F. l. R. Ex. P. 17. In this F. l. R. he has mentioned the names of 9 accused, persons. He did not mentioned the names of Janki Lal, Dhanna Lal, Sheo Lal, Trilok Chand and Chandu. These 5 accused persons were impleaded in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Banshi Lal gave a detailed report at the police Station. In the report he has specifically mentioned about the individual act of the accused persons. Who inflicted injury to whom and with what type of weapon has been clearly mentioned in the report. It means that Banshi Lal was in full senses when this report was lodged. WE see no reason that the person who gave such a detailed F. l. R in which he named 9 accused persons and also mentioned the individual act of these persons will fail to mention the names of other persons. It means that these 5 persons were added in the Police statements recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. Even, no specific overt- act has been assigned to these 5 accused-persons, whose names were not mentioned in the FIR. This shows that they have been falsely implicated in this incident. Jankilal has been found guilty u/s. 302 IPC while others have been found guilty u/s. 302/149 IPC. Thus,, according to trial Court Janki Lal is the main accused who fatal blows to deceased Murli. WE fail to understand that Banshi Lal would forget the name of Janki Lal who is main assailant. Jankilal is the person who inflicted fatal injuries to Murli which resulted in his death but he will not be named while the F. l. R. was lodged. This clearly shows that Janki Lal has been impleaded later on and a case has been concocted against him. Similarly the remaining 4 persons whose names have not been mentioned in the F. I R. have been falsely implicated by the witnesses in their statements u/s. 161 Cr. P. C.