- (1.) 12 accused persons were put to trial on the charge of murder of Mangilal and his wife Smt. Pyari Bai and also for causing injuries to PW-3 Ram Prasad and PW-1 Sushila Devi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara by judgment dated 11. 9. 1996 convicted the appellants Bansi Lal, Bhanwar Lal, Madan Lal, Balu Ram all S/o Dhokal Chand, Rama @ Rameshwar S/o of Madan Lal and Ram Singh S/o Dulle Singh of offence under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. They have also been convicted of offence under Section 458 and 148 IPC and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for respective offences. all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Rest of the six accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
(2.) THE appeal filed by the convicts has been registered as D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 533/1996. THE State appeal against the acquitted accused persons namely Chainaram @ Chunni Lal S/o Jeevan Ram Nayak, Gajanand @ Gajju @ Gajendra S/o of Chainaram, Mahendra S/o Ram Chandra, Ranjeet Singh S/o Shrichand Nayak, Nand Ram @ Nandu 2 Nand Lal s/o Kundan Ram Nayak and Dalla Singh S/o Bheem Singh has been registered as D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 192/1997. During the pendency of the State appeal, the second respondent Chainaram died and as such appeal against said respondent stand abated which has been recorded in our order dated 30. 11. 1999. Both the appeal are disposed of by common judgment. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 28. 08. 1992 at about 3. 00 a. m. PW-1 Smt. Sushila Devi submitted a written report Ex. P. 1 before the Incharge of Police Station Kareda stating inter alia that she alongwith her husband were sleeping in the room, her father-in-law deceased Mangilal and mother-in-law deceased Smt. Pyari Bai were sleeping in the compound. At about quarter to twelve she heard the out cry of her father in ``mare MARE''. Her husband PW-3 Ram Prasad went outside the room followed by her and they witnesses that appellant Bhanwar Lal and Bansilal were thrashing her father-in-law by `kulhari'. Her husband PW-3 Ram Prasad grappled with accused Bhanwar Lal. On which appellant Bansilal and Babu Lal also assaulted him by `kulhari' on account of which he fell down. Thereafter, they thrashed her mother in law and father-in-law by `kulhari'. In order to protect her father-in-law she covered him. One muffled face person fired the gun. She could not identify the said person. Ram Singh was carrying `kulharis' in their hands. They thrashed them by `kulharis'. On questioning by PW-2 Savitri as to whey they were assaulting her grand-father, appellant Bansi Lal gave stick blow on her back. She also stated that all the accused persons were seen in consultation for last two days at the house of Bhanwari Devi. Police registered a case for offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302 and 323 IPC and proceeded with investigation. Police prepared the site plan, inquest report and collected the material articles from the spot. Blood samples in two bottles were collected and they were sealed and packed. Police also seized the blood stained apparent of the deceased Pyari Bai and Mangilal. Dead bodies were sent for autopsy. The post mortem was conducted by Board of which PW-18 Dr. Anil Kumar Udawat was one of the member. The Board noticed following injuries on the person of the dead body of Mst. Pyari Bai aged 57 years:- 1. Incised injury of left side of neck. 2. Lacerated injury on occipital region of scalp. 3. Incised wound present on right palm mid measuring 3cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. 4. Incised would 7cm x 2cm x 1-1/2 cm left thigh left aspect above knee left. He proved the post mortem report Exhibit P-40. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage shock due to cutting of long blood vessels of left side of neck. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. The duration was 10 to 18 hours. On the same day, the Board also conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Mangilal aged 60 years and noticed following injuries:- 1. Incised wound on pariento occipital region of the scalp measuring 18 cm x 3 cm x full thickness of the skin. Transversely placed. 2. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x full thickness upto bone over frontal region scalp right side. 3. Incised wound over mid of the scalp 5 cm x 2 cm x full thickness of bone. 4. Incised wound measuring 20 cm 2 10 cm 2 bone thickness extending from shoulder joint (right sided) towards nape of neck. Deeper in beginning then tapering towards neck. 5 Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x full thickness of upto bone of left scapular region vertically placed. 6. Incised wound 6 cm x 3-12/ cm x full thickness including bone from dorsal to ventral aspect of left side. 7. Incised wound on left fore arm over dorsal aspect on upper one third measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep. 8 Incised wound over right fore arm at upper one third measuring 3-1/2 cm x 1 cm x full thickness. 9 Incised wound over right palm measuring 6 cm x 1-1/2 cm x skin deep extending from mid of palm to base of ring finger. 10 Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x skin deep over back of right thigh over middle one third part. He has proved the post mortem report Exhibit P-41. In his opinion, the cause of death was head injury and shock due to multiple injuries. The injuries were ante mortem. The duration was 10 to 18 hours. The injuries on the person of both the dead bodies were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. On the same day, he also examined the injuries of PW-2 Savitri, daughter of Ram Prasad and prepared injury report Exhibit P-8. She received one injury, simple in nature, caused by blunt object. The another member of the Medical Board was PW-32 Dr. Om Prakash. PW-3 Ram Prakash was also examined. He sustained eight injuries, all caused by sharp edged weapon. The injury Nos. 1, 3 7 and 8 were found grievous in nature. Recoveries of weapon of offence were made from the accused persons. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against 12 accused persons for offence under Section 147, 148, 302, 307, 458 and 302/120-B I. P. C. The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trail. Prosecution in support of the case examined 35 witnesses and produced number of documents. The appellants denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them in statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. It was pleaded by the accused persons that on account of enmity they have been falsely implicated. They also referred to litigation between them and victim party. They also stated that the entire investigation has been misdirected under the influence of Shri Ram Prasad, father of PW-2 Savitri, a former Minister. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that learned Judge has committed error in relying on the statement of PW-1 Smt. Sushila, PW-2 Savitri and PW-3 Ram Prasad. He invited our attention to some contradictions in their statements. He also submitted that the prosecution has roped in at least six innocent persons who have been acquitted by the trial court as such there is no guarantee that their version against the appellants is true. The learned counsel has also pointed out infirmities in recovery of weapon of offence. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment so far it relates to the conviction of six appellants. In the State appeal, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that a careful scrutiny of evidence shows that all the 12 accused persons entered into the conspiracy and committed the murder of Mangilal and Pyari Bai.
(3.) WE have scanned, scrutinize and evaluated the prosecution evidence exhaustively and considered the rival contentions. Though, prosecution has examined as many as 35 witnesses but entire case rests of the testimony of three material eye witnesses namely PW-1 Smt. Sushila Devi, PW-2 Savitri and PW-3 Ram Prasad. PW-4 Bhanwar Lal who reached on the spot just after the incident witnesses accused persons, running away from the spot. The prosecution has also led evidence with respect to the recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of the appellants. The weapon of offence have not only been found stained with human blood but group of blood found on the weapon of offences, the cloths of the accused persons and of the deceased persons is of the same. The main criticism against PW-1 Smt. Sushila, PW-2 Savitri and PW-3 Ram Prasad is that they being close relatives of the victims, are partisan and interested witnesses, as such no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is not in dispute that PW-3 Ram Prasad is the son, PW-1 Smt. Sushila is daughter in law and PW-2 Savitri is grand daughter of deceased Mangi Lal and Smt. Pyari Devi. It is well settled that evidence of witnesses of the occurrence can not be thrown over board merely because they are interested and partisan witnesses. There is no reason to understand as to why a close relative of the victims should leave the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person because of remote rivalry. The only caution is that deposition of such witnesses should be scrutinized with little more care and circumspection. Pw-1 Smt. Sushila is daughter in law of deceased Mangi Lal and Smt. Pyari Bai. She deposed that in the night of 27. 08. 1992 she alongwith her husband Pw-3 Ram Prasad were sleeping in the room of their house. In the veranda alongwith her mother-in-law and father-in-law his daughter Savitri and son Lalit and Mahaveer were sleeping. There was light in the street. At about 12 she heard the out cry of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. They cried "mare RE MARE RE''. She opened the door of the room and came out alongwith her husband. She witnesses that appellants Bansi Lal and Bhanwar Lal were thrashing her father-in-law by sword. Her husband grappled with Bhanwar Lal and Bansi Lal. Balu Ram and one more person with muffled face struck kulhari and sword blow on her husband. Appellant Balu Ram was carrying a kulhari in his hand and person with muffled face was carrying a sword with him. Her husband on receiving injuries fell on the ground. Her father-in-law was caught told by appellant Rameshwar. Bhanwar Lal and Bansi Lal inflicted sword blows on her father-in- law. Her mother-in-law was wounded by appellants Ram Singh and Madan. They inflicted injuries by kulhari. She also stated that Bhanwar Lal threw her mother-in-law on motorcycle and gave a sword blow on her neck. Her daughter Savitri, son Mahaveer and Lalit raised hue and cry which attracted number of persons from the neighbourhood. The accused persons were followed by five to six persons. They were standing at a distance. She also stated that there were number of cases pending between her father-in-law on the one side and Bhanwar Lal & Bansi Lal etc. on the other hand. On account of said enmity they murdered her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She also stated that Bansi Lal gave stick blow to Savitri. While returning, accused persons fired twice in air with 12 Bor gun. In cross-examination on being confronted with First Information Report with respect to weapon of offence in hand of appellant Bhanwar Lal and Bansi Lal, she explained that seeing the horrified incident she became perplexed and, therefore, due to confusion she named the weapon of offence as kulhari instead of sword. She denied the suggestion that investigation has been misdirected because of the influence of her father Rampal Upadhyay, a former Minister of State. There is a lengthy cross examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. ;