RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal, the appellant Rameshwar has challenged his conviction & sentence passed under Sec. 302 Penal Code by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh vide his judgment dated 10.8.04, whereby he has been convicted of the offence u/s.302 Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.I.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that on 5.12.03, Vardi Chand gave a statement before the police that in the evening when he was going to his house and on the way near the house of his brother Bagdi Ram, his nephew Rameshwar (accused) stopped him and made allegation against him for stealing 'Soyabin'. Accused Rameshwar, who was having lathi in his hand, started beating him, upon which he became unconscious. On this report, a case for the offences u/ss.341, 323 Penal Code was registered. Later on, Vardi Chand died and, therefore, investigation commenced under Sec.302 IPC. The clothes of the deceased Vardi Chand and lathi from accused Rameshwar were recovered and on the basis of the recovery and statements of the prosecution witnesses, accused Rameshwar alongwith Heera and Chhagan Lal were chargesheeted under Sec. 302 IPC. The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, to whom the case was transferred, framed charges against all the three accused. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s.313 CrPC. They led no defence. Learned trial Judge acquitted co accused Heera and Chhaganlal but convicted accused Rameshwar of the offence u/s.302 Penal Code and sentenced him as above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite there being major contradictions in the dying declaration and the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also the fact that no blood came out from the person of the injured, whereas the police has recovered a blood stained lathi and blood stained clothes, are the factors which throws serious doubt on the prosecution story and, therefore, the accused should be acquitted.