ABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dtd. 22/8/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 58/2009:

(2.) Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) Facts in brief are that one Prahlad Ram (PW-9) lodged a written report (Ex.P/4) before SHO, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner at the PBM Hospital, Bikaner on 9/5/2009 at 12.15 pm. alleging inter alia that on the previous night at about 11 o' clock, his brother Hadman and his wife Smt. Jethi Devi were proceeding towards Jethi Devi's maternal home situated in the village Daiya when Abu Singh came across them and tried to stop Hadman for consuming liquor. However, Hadman did not pay heed and continued on his way upon which, Abu Singh, Gordhan Singh and Pappu Singh forced him to stay back. Hadman's wife Smt. Jethi proceeded to her Peehar at Village Daiya and told her brother of these happenings. During this interval, the first informant also claims to have reached the village Daiya. He and the other family members, went to the place of the occurrence and requested Abu Singh, Gordhan Singh and Pappu Singh to spare Hadman but they insisted that they would consume liquor and then leave him at the Panchayat in the morning. The accused tied his brother up with a rope and forcibly confined him. The first informant and his companions were threatened that they should go away or else they would also meet the same fate. They got frightened and came back. In the morning, Sukhlal told him that Hadman is lying just near the place where three assailants had tied him up. The first informant then approached the officers of Police Station Gangashahar to report the matter. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 87/2009 was registered at the Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner for the offences under Ss. 302, 342, 323/34 of the IPC and usual investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the statements of Smt. Jethi Devi (wife of the deceased) and Jeetu Ram (son of the deceased) were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Both of them posed to be the eye-witnesses claimed that Prahlad Ram had also come to the village Daiya and he and Sukhlal had also witnessed the entire sequence of events. Dr. Rahul Jain (PW-11) carried out autopsy on deadbody of Hadman and noticed numerous abrasions thereupon. Ligature marks were seen on the right and left forearms above the wrists. Multiple sub-scalp haematomae as well as subdural haemorrhages were noticed underneath the head injuries which were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused were arrested and it is alleged that in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused Abu Singh to the I.O. Devendra Singh (PW-10) under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, a blood stained lathi was recovered from his house. While conducting site inspection, the I.O. claims to have recovered a blood stained rope lying inside the house of Abu Singh. The investigation was concluded and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the three accused appellants herein for the offences under Ss. 342 and 302/34 of the IPC. Since the offences were Sessions Triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner for trial. Charges were framed against the accused for the above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case for oblique motive. After hearing and considering the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above vide the impugned judgment dtd. 22/8/2012. Hence this appeal.