RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was married with P.W. 2 Smt. Sita, daughter of P.W. 1 Smt. Prabhawati and PW. 4 Ram Lal. The prosecution case is that on 11.7.96 at about 7.00 or 7.15 p.m. the appellant went to the house of his in-laws in order to bring Smt. Sita, P.W, 2 with him. Smt. Sita was staying with her parents at their house. On being asked to accompany him, Sita refused to go with the appellant. The appellant lost his temper and allegedly beat Smt. Sita. PW. 4 Ramlal and P.W. 1 Smt. Prabhawati, her father and mother respectively, intervened. The appellant allegedly struck them with a knife causing two injuries to Smt. Prabhawati, out of which one was a lacerated wound, and four injuries to Ram Lal with sharp edged weapon. The appellant thereafter left the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 Ram Lal gave his statement to the police in the Hospital whereupon Crime No. 283/96 under Sec. 452, 323, 324 and 307 Penal Code was registered against the present appellant. After investigation of the case the appellant was tried by the learned trial court on the charges for the aforesaid offences. However, by his judgment and order dated 12.1.98 the learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offences under Sec. 452 and 324 IPC, convicted him thereunder and se intended him to three years R.I. and a fire of Rs. 2500.00 for the offence under Sec. 452 Penal Code and two years R.I. and a tine of Rs. 2500.00 for the offence under Sec. 324 IPC. He was, however, acquitted of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 IPC. The aggrieved appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.

(2.) Heard the learned Amicus Curie for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(3.) Though the learned Amicus Curie submitted that since the alleged weapon of offence is not proved to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant or at his instance and that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was highly interested, yeti find no force in such submissions. Smt. Prabhawati, P.W. 1 Smt. Sita P.W. 2, Raj Kumar, PW. 3 and Ram Lal P.W. 4 are all those persons who may reasonably be expected to be present at the place of occurrence at that hour of time. The appellant himself was the son-in-law of the house and could have gone there to bring his wife P.W. 2 Smt. Sita On a refusal by Smt. Sita to accompany him he could have lost temper and opened an assault on Smt. Sita. It was but natural that the parents would not like their daughter to be assaulted in their own house and before their very eyes. The prosecution theory is thus most reasonable and probable. That apart Ram Lal and Smt. Prabhawati were soon removed to the hospital where P.W. 6 Dr. Lokendra Sharma, examined them and found injuries caused with sharp edged weapons and present on their respective persons. The case was registered on the basis of the statement of P.W. 4 Ram Lal, recorded in the hospital. Sequences of the events thus clearly show that the occurrence had taken place in the manner as stated by the prosecution witnesses. There is no reason as to why the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who include the injured themselves and are supported by the testimony of Dr. Lokendra Sharma, be rejected. The learned trial court has believed the witnesses, to my mind, rightly so. Their testimony fully proves that the appellant had voluntarily caused simple hurt with sharp-edged weapon to Smt. Prabhawati and Ram Lal, his parents-in-law. The offence under Sec. 324 Penal Code was thus fully proved against the appellant.