GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28. 1. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 21/85, by which he acquitted the accused respondents to the charges for the offence under Sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 16. 6. 85 at about 12. 30 PM, PW 10 Budharam gave statement to PW 9 Kishore Singh, which was recorded by him in Ex. P/15, stating inter-alia that on that day at about 10-11 AM he went to field for satisfying nature's call and at that time, accused respondents met there, who were having lathies in their hands and they started beating him and they beat him continuously, as a result of which, he fell down and since he was beaten so severely, he was not in a position to say which accused respondent caused which injury on his body and there was no enmity with them. He has further stated that he remained there is injured condition and, thereafter, he come to his house and then Gopal, PW 4 Shivji, PW 5 Chatraram, PW 6 Ratnaram, Tejaram and others came and they took him to the hospital of Nagaur in Jeep. On this parcha-bayan, PW 13 Rampal, Incharge of the Police Station Khatu District Nagaur registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/30 and started investigation and during investigation, PW 10 Budharam was got medically examined by Dr. Hansram Godara, PW 7 and his injury report is Ex. P/5, and X-ray was also got conducted for so many injuries and the X-ray report is Ex. P/13. THE accused respondents were arrested on 25. 6. 1985 through arrest memos Ex. P/16 to Ex. P/19. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 26. 7. 1985, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur framed charges for the offence under sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC against the accused respondents. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. THEy denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statements of the accused respondents under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, seven witnesses were produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur through his judgment and order 28. 1. 1987 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under sections 307/34 and 341/34 holding inter-alia:- 1. That PW 10 Budharam in his statement Ex. P/15 has stated that he has no enmity with the accused respondents, while PW 2 Durgaram states that father of the accused respondent-Likmaram was beaten and compromise took place. 2. That PW 10 Budharam has stated in his statement Ex. P/15 that he was lying in injured condition on the spot for a sufficient time, though PW 2 Durgaram says that when he reached on the spot, he saw that the accused respondents were beating PW 10 Budharam. 3. That PW 10 Budharam has stated in his statement Ex. P/15 that all accused respondents were armed with lathies, while in Court statement he has stated that one accused respondent- Likmaram was armed with kulhari. 4. That PW 2 Durgaram does not say how many injuries of farsi were caused to PW 10 Budharam. 5. That prosecution has failed to produce independent witnesses, though there were so many persons where the incident took place. 6. That prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 4 Shivjiram, PW 2 Durgaram, PW 6 Ratnaram and PW 5 Chatraram are relatives and interested witnesses and, therefore, learned trial Judge did not believe their evidence. 7. That PW 10 Budharam has himself admitted that accused respondents ran away form the scene after beating him and, thereafter, PW 2 Durgaram, PW 4 Shivjiram and PW 5 Chatraram came there and therefore, they could not be described as eye witnesses, while PW 2 Durgaram says that he saw the accused respondents beating injured PW 10 Budharam and thus, there are material contradictions and creates doubt on the prosecution story. 8. That there is evidence that when PW 10 Budharam went to satisfy nature's call, he was having a lotta, but no lotta was recovered and this also creates doubt on the prosecution story. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 28. 1. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, nagaur, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State is that the whole order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is based on flimsy grounds as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused respondents with the commission of crime and the statement of PW 10 Budharam is fully supported by medical evidence and the most important aspect as put by the learned Public Prosecutor is that incident took place on 16. 6. 1985 at about 10-11 Am and statement Ex. P/15 was given by PW 10 Budharam to PW 9 Kishore Singh in the noon i. e. just after few hours of occurrence and thus, there is no reason to hold that PW 10 Budharam is falsely implicating the accused respondents. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge be set aside and the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents has argued that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur are based on correct appreciating of evidence and thus, no interference is called for and this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan be dismissed. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the record of the case. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence of this case has to be discussed here.
(3.) DR. Hansram Godara, PW 7 has been examined to prove the injury report Ex. P/5 and x-ray report Ex. P/13 of injured Budharam, PW 10. Pw 7 Dr. Hansram Godara states that on 16. 6. 1985 he was Medical Jurist in the Government Hospital, Nagaur and on that day he examined Budharam, Pw 10 and found the following injuries:- 1. Contusion 4"x1 1/2" on anterolateral aspect of right arm in middle 1/3. Simple by blunt object. 2. Contusion 2"x1 1/2" on lateral aspect of middle 1/3 of right arm. Simple by blunt object. 3. Contusion 5"x1" on posterior aspect of open part of right forearm. By blunt object. 4. Contusion 2"x1" with 1/2"x1/2" abrasion over it placed transversely on posterior aspect of right forearm middle 1/3. By blunt object. 5. Contusion 1 1/2"x1" with irregular abrasion over it transversely placed on right forearm posteriosly in distal 1/3. By blunt object. 6. Contusion 2"1" with abrasion over it on diffuse swelling of posterior aspect of right hand. By blunt object. 7. An abrasion 1/4"x1/4" on posterior aspect of proximal phalanx of right middle finger. By blunt object. 8. An incised would of 1"x1/4" x bone deep vertically placed on posterolateral aspect of right arm about 3" above the lateral condyle of humerous. By sharp edged weapon. 9. Contusion 2"x1" transversely placed on right arm 2" anterior to injury No. 8. By blunt object. 10. Contusion 2"x1" on posterior medial aspect of left forearm with diffuse swelling of the part in lower 1/3. By blunt object. 11. Swelling of 3"x1 1/2" size on posterior aspect of left hand. By blunt object. 12. Abrasion 1/2"x1/4" on antero lateral aspect of proximal phalanx of ring finger in left hand. By blunt object. 13. Abrasion 1/2"x1/4" on posterior aspect of proximal phalanx of middle finger in left hand. By blunt object. 14. An incised would of 1/2"x1/6"x bone deep transversely placed on distal phalanx of middle finger of left hand cutting and missing the distal half of the nail. By sharp edged weapon. 15. Six contusions of different lengths in different directions about 1"to 1 1/2" width present on right buttock in an area of 10"x10". Simple by blunt object. 16. Contusion of 8"x1" on anterolateral aspect of right thigh in middle part. Simple by blunt object. 17. A contusion 2"x1" with abrasion on right knee laterally. Simple by blunt object. 18. A contusion 2"x1" with diffuse swelling of the anterolateral aspect of right leg in upper 1/3. By blunt object. 19. A lacerated would 3"x3/4"x bone deep on anterior aspect of middle 1/3 of right leg. by blunt object. 20. Incised would of 1/2"x1/4" muscle deep 1" below the lower end of injury no. 19. Simple by sharp edged weapon. 21. Incised would 1/2"x1/4" muscle deep 2" below the injury No. 20. Simple by sharp edged weapon. 22. Incised would 1/2"x1/4" muscle deep 6" above the lateral malleolus. Simple by sharp edged weapon. 23. Contusion 2"x1" on lateral aspect of right leg just below the injury No. 22 with diffuse swelling. By blunt object. 24. A lacerated would 4"x3/4"x bone deep on skin of tibia left side in middle 1/3. By blunt object. He has further stated that out of the above 24 injuries, injuries No. 8, 14, 20, 21 and 22 were caused by sharp edged weapon. He has further stated that he advised X-ray for so many injuries and since he was also Incharge of Radiology, therefore, he got done the X-ray of injuries of Pw 10 Budharam and the X-ray report is Ex. P/13 and according to him, injuries No. 3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14,18 and 20 were grievous in nature. He has further stated that looking to the cumulative effect of all these injuries, the condition of the injured Pw 10 Budharam was not good one and had he been not given proper and timely treatment, these injuries would have been fatal. Thus, from the statement of Pw 7 Dr. Hansram Godara, it is very well proved that Pw 10 Budharam received as many as 24 injuries and out of these 24 injuries, five injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and on x-ray of his injuries, as many as 12 fractures were found. ;