KAILASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.80/2011:

(2.) The complainant Hakru (PW-1) submitted an oral report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Ambapura, District Banswara at the place of occurrence i.e. Village Relbari alleging inter alia that his younger brother Sarma son of Jeevna, by caste Ninama Adiwasi aged 30 years, used to reside in a hut constructed near the main road and was indulged in the business of selling grocery items from the hut. On the day of the occurrence i.e. on 21.05.2010 at about 05.30 pm., the informant and his brother were both sitting at the shop. At that time, Rama son of Hardu, Kailash son of Kanji, Dungariya @ Narayan son of Kanji, Hariya @ Harish son of Kanji, and Kanji son of Hemla, by caste Dindor Adiwasi, residents of Bhurisagaderi came there after forming an unlawful assembly. They were carrying a bottles filled with petrol with them. On arrival, they insinuated that the shop had been put up on their land. Saying so in threatening tones, the accused surrounded Sarma and exhorted that he would be killed today. Sarma was tied by a wire. Kailash poured petrol on the body of Sarma and Dungariya @ Narayan set him to fire by a matchstick. Rama and Harish set fire to the hut due to which, a blaze flared up. The informant shouted on which, Dinesh son of Gautam, Jeevna son of Deepa, Kailash son of Gautam, Prabhu son of Gautiya, Narayan son of Puna Kharadi, came around running. By that time, the accused had escaped from the scene of occurrence after indulging in the offence. Sarma died on the spot due to burn injuries. Thereafter, numerous other people came there. The household and the grocery articles lying in the hut were destroyed in the fire. The total loss due to fire was estimated at about 25-30 thousand rupees. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.112/2010 (Ex.P/3) came to be registered at the Police Station Ambapura for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 436 IPC. Shri Hakru submitted another report (Ex.P/2) to the Dy. S.P., Banswara on 22.05.2010 in which, five more persons in addition to those named in the FIR no.112/2010 were also alleged to be indulged in the arson and murder.

(3.) The investigation was undertaken by the SHO, Ambapura (PW-19) Shri Narendra Singh. He proceeded to prepare the site inspection plan. An iron wire and ashes lying at the spot were taken into possession and sealed. The dead body of Sarma was forwarded to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Banswara for postmortem examination. The Panchayatnama Lash of the body (Ex.P/4) was prepared. The body was handed over to the relatives for cremation. The I.O. proceeded to record the statements of various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The five accused named in the FIR were arrested. In furtherance of the information (Ex.P/23) provided by the accused Dungariya @ Narayan to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, an empty bottle in which, the petrol was allegedly carried, was recovered. The revenue record was collected. The five accused persons named in the subsequent report were also arrested. Finally, the investigating officer proceeded to submit a charge-sheet against 10 persons in the court of the Magistrate concerned for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 436 and 120B IPC. As the offences were triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara for trial. The trial court framed charges against all the accused for the above offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents to prove its case. The accused Kanji expired during the course of trial and accordingly, proceedings as against him were dropped. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Three witnesses were examined in defence.