RAMVEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal u/s. 374 (2) Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 7. 95 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicted and sentenced Ramveer, Mukesh and Mata Prasad, appellants, u/s. 302 r/w. Sec. 34 IPC to imprisonment for life and Rs. 500/- as fine or in case of default in making payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months Mukesh appellant was further convicted and sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 and to six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as under- On February 7, 1991, at about 4. 00 p. m. Sewaram, deceased and his brother Ram Khilari, had gone to bring sand in their camel cart from the bank of river running in the vicinity of village Simona. While they were on their way to the bank of river, the three appellants appeared on the way. All the three appellants were armed with lathis. THEy opened an attack upon the deceased and PW. 3, Ramkhilari, Mukesh appellant gave a lathi blow to PW 3, Ramkhilari on his back making him to run away from the spot. All the three appellants continued their assault upon Sewa Ram deceased and caused him fatal injuries. PW 3, Ramkhilari, went to the village and called upon Moji Ram PW 10 and Jagdish PW 5 and taking a cot with them all the three brought the dead Sewaram from the jungle to his house.

(3.) MR. G. D. Parwal, the learned Public Prosecutor, duly assisted by MR. Anil Jain, the learned counsel for the complainant, not only supported the judgment and order under appeal but also further submitted that PW. 3 Ramkhilari was injured himself and, therefore, his presence at the time of commission of the offences against him as also against the deceased cannot be doubted. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that since the deceased and the present appellants were in litigation from before the incident and since Sevaram, deceased, Ramkhilari PW 3 and Ramchitra PW 4 were being prosecuted by the appellants, they had a motive to assault the deceased and caused his death. The learned Public Prosecutor and MR. Jain further submitted that after the incident the appellants had gone to the house of the deceased and informed his widow that they had murdered the deceased and that his dead body was lying in the jungle. It was submitted that it was an act and conduct of !he appellants which may show as to how dare devil they were. The learned counsel further submitted that not only there was truthful and reliable direct evidence in the statement of PW 3 Ramkhilari against the present appellants but also that the evidence of extra-judicial confession was quite satisfactory and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no good reasons to disbelieve either the direct evidence or the circumstantial evidence on the record of the trial court.