GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 10. 4. 87 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 27/1986 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323 I. P. C.
(2.) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances: (i) On 17. 4. 86, in the hospital at Bhadra, P. W. 8 Mahaveer Prasad, SI recorded the statement of P. W. 1 Dharam Pal and the same is Ex. P/1 and P. W. 1 Dharam Pal narrated before him that his field was near to the field of accused respondent Deshraj and cattle of Deshraj used to damage their crop and for that the accused respondent Deshraj and another accused Mahaveer (son of accused respondent Deshraj) became aggrieved. On 16. 4. 86 in the evening, he heard cries "mare-Mare" of his father P. W. 5 Biru Ram near the house of P. W. 3 Amar Singh, then he went there and saw that accused respondent Desh Ram was armed with Jai and his son accused respondent Mahaveer was armed with lathi and both were beating his father P. W. 5 Biru Ram. Both the accused respondents caused injuries on his head. After hearing cries, P. W. 6 Ranjeet S/o Har Lal and P. W. 4 Ranjeet S/o Birbal came there and when they intervened, the accused respondent ran away. It was further stated that his father P. W. 5 Biru Ram became unconscious after receiving injuries and he got P. W. 5 Biru Ram admitted in the hospital in the night. Thereafter he went to his village back. He further stated that both the accused respondents had given beating to P. W. 5 Biru Ram with an intention to murder him. On that statement, P. W. 8 Mahaveer ordered for registration of the case. (ii) That statement Ex. P/1 was sent by P. W. 8 Mahaveer through messenger to the Police Station, Bhadra where P. W. 9 Prithvi Raj lodged a first information report and the same is Ex. P/7 and started investigation. It is also the case of the prosecution that when P. W. 5 Biru Ram was got admitted in the hospital at Bhadra Dr. P. W. 2 Brij Mohan gave letter Ex. P/3 dated 16. 4. 86 to the SHO, Police Station Bhadra and sent information that P. W. 5 Biru Ram was admitted in the Hospital. P. W. 2 Dr. Brij Mohan got medically examined P. W. 5 Biru Ram on 16. 4. 86 and found eight injuries on his person and all were caused by blunt object and injury No. 3 was found to be grievous one and was on the head of P. W. 5 Biru Ram. The injury report of P. W. 5 Biru Ram is Ex. P/4. Another letter Ex. P/6 was written by P. W. 8 Mahaveer to P. W. 2 Dr. Brij Mohan enquiring from him: (i) When P. W. 5 Biru Ram was admitted in the hospital. (ii) Whether when P. W. 5 Biru Ram was admitted in the hospital, he was conscious or not? (iii) When P. W. 2 Dr. Brij Mohan referred him to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. (5a ). P. W. 2 Dr. Brij Mohan replied on back of Ex. P/6 that on 18. 4. 86 P. W. 5 Biru Ram was referred for treatment to PBM Hospital and upto that he was unconscious. The accused respondent Mahaveer was arrested through fard Ex. P/9 on 25. 4. 86 and accused respondent Deshraj was arrested through fard Ex. P/10 on 25. 4. 86.
(3.) ON 4. 8. 86, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323 I. P. C. against accused respondents, but both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, as many as 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and no evidence was led in defence by accused respondents. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondents for all the charges framed against them through his judgment and order dated 10. 4. 87 inter alia holding that: (i) Since there was enmity between the accused respondents and complainant party, therefore, evidence of prosecution was not relied on by the learned Additional sessions Judge. (ii) Since the incident took place in the night of 16. 4. 86 and P. W. 1 Dharam Pal gave statement on the next day at noon, though he was in the hospital and thus, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there was delay in lodging the report and that delay was found fatal as the same has not been explained by the prosecution. (iii) Apart from P. W. 1 Dharam Pal, other brothers of P. W. 5 Biru Ram were in the hospital, and they could have lodged the report. (iv) P. W. 1 Dharam Pal has improved his statement in the court and therefore he was not found reliable witness. (v) Statement of P. W. 5 Biru Ram was recorded by the police on 22. 5. 86 and the same is Ex. D/1 and that statement was recorded with delay and hence no reliance can be placed on the statement of P. W. 5 Biru Ram and thus, he acquitted accused respondents. ;