DHARM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2. Bharatpur dated June 25, 1988 by which accused Dharm Singh was convicted under Section 302 and Ram Charan. Atiroop and Maharaj Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further under go one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE four appellants before us are real brothers being the sons of Girraj Singh Gujar of village Nagla-Rarodia, Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur. Pw-1 Sardarsingh is the uncle of the appellants being the real brother of their father Girraj Singh. Girraj Singh and Sardar Singh (PW-1 ). had one more brother Ram Singh. THE deceased victim Bhagwan Singh aged about 22 years was the son of Ram Singh.

(3.) PW-4 Ram Swaroop also stated nothing materially beneficial to the prosecution. He stated that he simply saw Bhagwan Singh lying wounded. He expressed his ignorance as to who had caused injuries to him. Ofcourse, he stated that he had seen the appellants running away from the place of incident. In cross-examination he stated that he was looking after his cows grazing nearby the place of incident. In his police statement Ex. D. 4, he stated that he was coming to Bayana and he saw PW-1 Sardar Singh, PW-3 Rajaram and PW-6 Pyare Singh taking Bhagwan Singh in a bullock cart towards Bayana. Bhagwan Singh had wounds on his person. He was confronted with the aforesaid portions A to B and C to D in Ex. D. 4 and he denied to have stated these portions before the police during the investigation. He is a resident of village Thanadangh which is more than three miles away from the place of incident. In his cross examination he admitted that PW-1 Sardar Singh is the husband of his sister. In Ex-D. 4 he also stated that deceased Bhagwan Singh made a declaration before him that he was assaulted and beaten by the appellants. When he was confronted with the aforesaid portion in Ex. D. 4, he again denied to have stated so during the investigation. He has thus made contradictory statements throughout which cannot be reconciled. His village is more than three miles away from the place of incident and we are unable to imagine that he was grazing his cows near-about the site of crime. His presence on the spot is highly doubtful. His claim to have seen the appellants running from the place of incident does not appear to be true and credible. His testimony does not inspire confidence.