GIRRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner today referred to the statement of the star witnesses for the prosecution. In an incident, one, Manphool, lost his life. According to the post mortem report, the cause of death of Manphool is given as under:-

(2.) In view of the aforesaid opinion of the doctor, it is thus clear that the death of Manphool was as a result of the head injury. Now it is to be seen as to which of the accused-persons inflicted blows on which of the persons. In the F.I.R. which has been alleged by Kanwarpal (father of the deceased) no specific overt act has been assigned to any of the accused who are said to be eight in numbers Kanwar Pal in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. stated that on the person of Manphool, Girraj inflicted blow by spear on his head and Parsadi inflicted gandasi blow on his head while Raghunath inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Other witness referred to is Brijmohan who in his police statement stated that Raghunath inflicted two gandasi blows on the head of the deceased and Girraj inflicted one blow by spear and Parsadi inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased. The third witness, Salim, has stated that Raghunath inflicted three gandasi blows on the head of the deceased and the petitioner inflicted a blow whereas Parsadi inflicted lathi blow. Similar is the statement of Chiranji. Taking the aid of the evidence referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the liability cannot be fastened for the fatal injury to all the three persons namely, Girraj, Parsadi and Raghunath, in addition to the circumstance when Kanwarpal (father of the deceased) stated that Parsadi inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of the deceased; and Parsadi has already been released on bail, according to the learned counsel, the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable.

(3.) At this stage, I do not want to express any opinion on the flaws points out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also their effect. However, I may state that admittedly, Parsadi has been released on bail against whom allegation according to the statement of Kanwarpal is that he inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of the deceased and according to Brijmohan Chiranji he inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased, which also proved fatal as is opinion of the medical jurist who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased. From what I have discussed, it is thus clear that the case of the present petitioner is similar to Parsadi who has already been released on bail which induces me to hold that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail.