NIMBA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat Camp Jaitaran, Pali, dated 18.6.2002, whereby he convicted accused appellant Sukha Ram of the offences u/ss.148 & 302 Penal Code and rest of the accused appellants viz; Nimba Ram, Chautha Ram, Teja Ram, Dayal, Mana Ram and Shrawan of the offences u/ss.148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. For the offence u/s.148 IPC, each of the accused appellants was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1000.00 & in default, to further undergo one month's R.I. Accused Sukha Ram u/s.302 and rest of the accused appellants u/s.302 read with 149 Penal Code were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default, to further undergo six months' R.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the amount of fine to be recovered from all the accused, Rs.25,000.00 was ordered to be paid to wife of deceased Chandra Ram.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 24.2.99, the complainant Narayan filed a written report, Ex.P.1 that on that day in the morning, he alongwith Bhanwar Singh went from village Patan to D.L.F.Mines and came back at 10 AM. When they reached near the 'Hathai' (platform for gossiping) of the village, they were told by Raju that his brother Chandra Ram was being beaten at the well of Narayan. Upon this, they reached on the spot, where they saw their sister Shravni weeping and also noticed accused Sukha Ram with axe and rest of the accused appellants with lathis beating Chandra Ram. On seeing them, the accused party ran away from the spot. Accused appellants Chandra and Shravan were empty handed but they were giving fist blows. Papudi (PW 2) was also present there. According to the F.I.R., the accused appellants killed Chandra Ram and threw the dead body near the bushes. On this report, the police registered a case u/ss.302 and 148 Penal Code and commenced investigation. During investigation, the police recovered one axe from accused Sukha Ram and lathis from rest of the accused appellants. The recovery of blood stained clothes and soil was also made, which were sent for chemical examination. After investigation, the police filed challan against the above seven accused appellants but the police left accused Chandra. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the charges were framed. Accused Sukha Ram was charged u/ss.148 and 302 Penal Code and rest of the accused appellants under ss.148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC. They produced three witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted & sentenced the accused appellants as above.

(3.) While assailing the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it has been contended by the learned counsel that out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, there were six eye witnesses of the case viz; Narayan (PW 1), Papudi (PW 2), Raju Singh (PW 3), Bhanwar Singh (PW 5), Shravni (PW 7) and Mugna Ram (PW 15). Out of these six eye witnesses, three witnesses viz; Papudi (PW 2), Raju Singh (PW 3) & Bhanwar Singh (PW 5) have turned hostile, who were named in the F.I.R. itself as eye witnesses, and Mugna Ram (PW 15), whose name was not there in the FIR as eye witness, has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Thus according to him, there remains only two eye witnesses of the case viz; Narayan, PW 1 and Shravni, PW 7, whose evidence is also unreliable, as Narayan, PW 1 reached on the spot after the incident took place as per the FIR itself and Shravni, PW 7 was not present on the spot in view of the defence led by the accused appellants. He has further submitted that according to the doctor, the axe, by which accused Sukha Ram is alleged to have given blow on the deceased Chandra Ram, was not found blood stained and it was not sent for chemical examination. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the site plan Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 by asserting that the place where the incident took place, is the joint well of the complainant and the accused party and there was a previous murder case lodged against some of the prosecution witnesses of this case and on this account, the accused appellants have been falsely implicated on the trivial matter of taking water for agricultural purposes from the well. He has further submitted that in all, there are 12 injuries and not a single injury is incised wound, as all the injuries are lacerated wounds and abrasions. According to him, Dr.Laxmikant, PW 9, who conducted the post mortem report Ex.P.24, has also stated that no injury was caused by the sharp edged weapon and that if the deceased would have been given medical treatment, he could have been saved. According to the doctor, except the lacerated wound on the right side of the scalp, death could not have been caused by rest of the injuries. He has further submitted that there is no question of formation of unlawful assembly, as the place where the incident took place, is the joint property of the complainant and the accused party.