Decided on August 09,1984

GHISIA Respondents


KASLIWAL, J. - (1.)THE appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, dated September 2, 1975, acquitting all the accused persons for offences under sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 IPC.
(2.)CHALLAN was filed against 8 accused persons but one of the accused persons namely Hazari died during trial and as such the remaining 7 persons were tried for the aforesaid offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons and this court has granted leave against only 5 accused persons namely Ghisia, Nanga, Dev Bux, Bajranga and Ram Kumar.
Prosecution story in brief was that the accused persons had a deep rooted enmity with the deceased Har Narain. Several criminal cases were pending between the parties for the last many years. The prosecution story further is that on September 16, 1974, accused persons and deceased Har Narain had come to attend the case in the court at Sawaimadhopur. After attending the court case when Har Narain was returning back to his village in the evening he was intercepted by the accused persons near the border of village Dadri and Soorwal. The accused persons were armed with lathies, axes and Salyas etc. All the accused persons belaboured Harnarain and inflicted serious injuries on different parts of his body. Dhooli Lal PW 1 and Bajrang Singh PW 2, who were also returning to their village from Sawai Madhopur saw the incident from a distance. Dhooli Lal PW 1 was the brother of Har Narain deceased. Both these witnesses when reached the place of incident they saw the accused persons beating Har Narain deceased. When they gave a challenge, the accused persons took to their heels from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Dhooli Lal sent Bajrangsingh and one Manphool to bring a cot from the Village. Both the above persons returned back with a cot alongwith Badri, Ram Swaroop, Raja Ram, Gopal and some others. They brought Har Narain on the cot to some distance and thereafter brought Har Narain to Sawaimadhopur in a tempo. Then they came to Police Station, Sawaimadhopur and Dhooli Lal lodged an FIR Ex. P. 1. Police registered a case under section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and started investigation. The injured Har Narain mean while died in the hospital and the case was converted in to Section 302 IPC. The autopsy of the dead body of Har Narain was conducted by Dr. G. N. Saxena PW 6 on September 17, 1974 at 8 a. m. According to the injuries found on the body of Har Narain there remain no doubt that he was beaten mercylessly & the intention of the culprits was to causa his death. The question, however, remains whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused-respondents were the persons, who caused the death of Har Narain in this incident. The prosecution in this regard has examined PW 1 Dhooli Lal and PW 2 Bajrang Singh as eye witnesses of the incident. So far as Bajrang Singh is concerned he was allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor as he had not supported the prosecution case. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the discussion made by him with regard to these two witnesses. He has pointed out material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses which throw a doubt regarding the fact of their witnessing the incident. There are serious contradictions in the statements of these witnesses on the point of their going together from the village to Sawaimadhopur and also on the fact of their coming back from Sawaimadhopur to their village. That apart, according to PW 1 Dhooli Lal he had attended the factory from 8 a. m. to 2. 00 p m. on September 16, 1974, but the above fact is belied from the statement of Kalyan Singh DW 1 produced on behalf of the defence. Kalyan Singh, who was a clerk in the factory has been examined by the defence along with the record of attendance of employees in the factory. He clearly deposes that Dhooli Lal PW 1 was on duty from 4 p. m. to 12. 00 in the night of September 14, 1974 and thereafter he remained absent from Sept. 15, 1974 to Sept. 30, 1974. The Attendance Registers Ex. D 2 and D 3 were filed, which are kept in the ordinary course of business in the factory, and learned Public Prosecutor was unable to show anything to doubt the genuineness of the entries made in these registers. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also placed reliance on this register and we also do not find any reason to take a different view. Dhooli Lal is the real brother of deceased Har Narain and is an interested witness and his presence at the time of incident is totally belied by the evidence of DW 1 Kalyan Singh and the Attendance Register of the factory. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of Dhooli Lal and Bajrang Singh and it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard is in any manner perverse or illegal.

In view of these circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused respondents are on bail. They need not surrender to the bail bonds and their bail bonds are discharged. .

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.