KHEMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nine appellants were placed on trial before learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 20/97 for having committed murder of Ram Lal. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated May 18, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- (1) Babu Lal s/o Chhaju Ram & (2) Chhaju Ram: U/s. 302/149 IPc To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPc To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPc To suffer Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to further suffer. Three months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 364 IPc To suffer Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer. Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment. (3) Murlidhar: U/s. 302/149 IPc To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPc To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPc To suffer Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to further suffer Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 364 IPc To suffer Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 379 IPc To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Rigorous Imprisonment. (4) Khema Ram, (5) Deepa Ram, (6) Sheopal, (7) Babu Lal s/o Deepa Ram, (8) Sagar Mal and (9) Laxman Prasad: U/s. 302/149 IPc To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPc To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPc To suffer Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to further suffer Three Months Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. , +

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on November 2, 1996 around 6. 30 PM while Ram Lal (now deceased) was coming back to his house from Reengus on a camel cart of Mana Ram, appellant Khemaram and his family members got Ram Lal down from the camel cart and took him to their house where he was beaten by them and thereafter he was taken to some unknown place. Rameshwar, the brother of Ramlal, on coming to know about the incident in the morning of November 3, 1996, lodged a written report with the Police Station Govindgarh where a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 364 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On receiving the dead body of Ramlal Section 302 IPC was also added. After thorough investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet. The investigation however was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. against Bhagirath Mal. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who discharged the co-accused Smt. Sarli and Moharli and framed charges under Sec. 120b/364, 148, 120b/149/302, 120b/201 and 394/397 against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 34 witnesses and got exhibited 75 documents. In their explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness however in defence was examined. The learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel canvassed that the evidence on the point of abduction of deceased Ramlal by the appellant Murlidhar, Chhaju Ram and Babu Lal s/o Chhaju Ram is wholly inconsistent besides being highly unnatural. The contemporaneous reaction of Mana Ram and Sardar Mal clearly betrays absence of these witnesses at the time of alleged abduction. It is further contended that there was complete darkness and the way was surrounded by `sarkandas' from both sides therefore it was not possible to identify anybody. In order to appreciate the contention we have closely scrutinised the testimony of Mana Ram (PW. 2) and Sardar Mal (PW. 4 ). Both are the independent witnesses and their testimony could not be shattered in the cross examination. Both of them deposed that there was some darkness only and they had identified appellants Murlidhar, Chhaju Ram and Babu Lal s/o Chhaju Ram. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar (1), counsel representing the accused made similar submissions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was urged that as there was no light it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the accused or to see the incident. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while rejecting the submissions, observed in para 34 thus:- " We see no substance in this submission also. It must be remembered that the incident had taken place in a village. As has been held by this Court in the case of Kalika Tiwari vs. State of Bihar (JT 1997 (4) SC 405 = (1997) 4 SCC 445), the visible capacity of urban people who are acclimatised to fluorescent lights or incandescent lamps is not the standard to be applied to villagers whose optical potency is attuned to country-made lamps. It has been held that the visibility of villagers conditioned to such lights and hence it would be quite possible for them to identify men and matters in such light. "