Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This is a State appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by which he acquitted the accused Doongariya for the offence under Secs. 307, 307/34, 324, 324/34, 325/34 IPC and under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and other accused Samiya and Soojiya were also acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : PW 1 Keriya lodged a report Ex.P 1 in the police station Modra District Jalore on 27.4.1981 with the allegations that his brother Gomla PW 2 had gone to village Dhansa and in the meantime, accused Samiya. Doongariya and Soojiya and one another person Ajiya came and thereafter they beat PW 1 Keriya. PW 2 Gomal. PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya and at the time of incident accused Doongariya was having a gun and he fired from his gun and caused injuries and this in incident PW 1 Keriya PW 2 Gomal PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya received fire arms injuries. Note : That Ajiya is a person, who died during the incident and there is a cross case for the murder of Ajiya against the complaint party in this case.
(3.) On this report, the police registered a case and thereafter, investigation was started and PW 1 Keriya, PW 2 Gomal and PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya were got examined medically and challan was filed against the accused appellants. The accused Doongariya, Samiya and Soojiya were charged for the offence under Secs. 307, 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34 I.P.C. and apart from this charges under Secs. 25 and 27 were also framed against the accused Doongariya. The accused denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited 33 documents. No witness has been examined in defence and eleven documents were got exhibited in defence. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 acquitted all the three accused appellants of all the charges framed against them holding : 1. That there is a cross case of the same incident in which from the side of accused party, one Ajiya died during the incident and the complainant party is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Ajiya. 2. That the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries sustained by the accused party, on whose side one of their relatives Ajiya had expired as an outcome of such injury and thus, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution has made the case of the prosecution doubtful and thus. Prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and thus has not presented the true version. 3. That the prosecution witnesses who may have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. 4. That evidence of the prosecution witnesses is neither clear nor cogent, much less independent, but is highly interested, improbable, inconsistent and discredited.;