PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, convicting the accused appellant Pritam Singh under sections 148, 452, 302, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C., accused Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307 and 324/124, accused Kala Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307/149 and 324, I.P.C. and accused Hardutt Singh under Sections 148, 452, 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. and sentencing accused Pritam Singh, Kala Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurumukh Singh and Hardutt to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 148, I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default thereof to suffer one months simple imprisonment for offence under Sec. 452, I.P.C., sentencing Pritam Singh for offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and Kala Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Hardutt Singh under Sec. 302/149, I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each and in default thereof to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment, sentencing Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh under Sec. 307 and Pritam Singh, Kala Singh and Hardutt Singh under Sec. 307/149, I.P.C. to suffer five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 each and in default thereof to suffer two months R.I., sentencing Kala Singh under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and Pritam Singh, Chhinda Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Hardutt Singh under Sec. 324/149, I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 14.10.1993, at about 6.15 PM. an information was sent by Primary Health Centre, Pilibanga to the Police Station, Pilibanga regarding some incident and this information was entered in Rojnamcha of Police Station, Pilibanga (Ex.R/34). After receipt of the said information the Station House Officer along with his associates proceeded to Primary Health Centre and after reaching there, he recorded the statements of injured Govind Singh (Ex.P/8). The injured Govind Singh stated that at 5.00 PM. in the evening, he along with his sons Makhan Singh, Gurnam Singh, Niranjan Singh, Pyara Singh and his grand son Dilip were preparing the roof of the Kotha. Niranjan Singh and Makhan Singh were on the roof, he and Gurnam Singh were inside the Kotha whereas Pyare Singh and Dilip Singh were also inside the Kotha. All of sudden, they heard some Lalkar from the field of narma which is just adjacent to his Dhani. Thereafter all of the accused appellants came out from the field. Pritam Singh was having a 12 bore gun, Gurmukh Singh and Chhinda Singh were having 12 bore pistals, Kala Singh was having sword and Hardutt Singh was having Khanda in his hand. At that time, Hardutt Singh exhorted as to what the accused were watching, shoot them. Then Niranjan Singh came out. Pritam Singh fired on Niranjan Singh and he fell down. Makhan Singh was also going out, then Gurmukh Singh fired from pistol on him and hit him. Chinda Singh fired on Gurnam Singh. Kala Singh gave sword blow to him which landed on his left hand. Thereafter, accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. They attended the injured Niranjan Singh but he died. It was also alleged by the complainant that Hardutt Singh was his real brother and the occurrence took place on account of dispute regarding the partition of the land. On this information, a case under Sec. 302, I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan and completed necessary formalities. After completion of the investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellants. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellants and during trial as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and got certain documents exhibited. After completing the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and have heard the counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused prays for acquittal of all the accused persons claiming that several circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution and several serious doubts arise in the prosecution story due to lack of certain evidence and the accused persons should get benefit of the same. The learned counsel pointed out to us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that serious infirmity remained in the prosecution evidence and consequently the conviction as recorded by the trial Judge is not maintainable.