RATHORE, J. - (1.) ON being charged with and convicted for the murder of four persons, namely; Manohar Singh, Nagu Singh, Inder Singh and Bapu Singh along with 22 other accused persons, the appellants have preferred this jail appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial court on 13th February, 2004.
(2.) EARLIER, against the aforesaid impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, the accused Kalu Lal, Inder Singh, Bal Chand, Suresh, Ram Prasad and Shri Ram had filed an appeal (313/2004). Another appeal (339/2004) against the judgment of the learned trial court was filed by Prahlad Singh, Babulal, Bhagwan Singh, Amar Singh, Bapu Lal, Kanti Ram and Ram Prasad. Co-accused Prithvi Singh, Jagdish, Man Singh, Nand Ram and Prahad had filed a separate appeal (385/2004). Likewise, an appeal (428/2004) was preferred by Bahadur Singh, Tanwar Singh and Man Singh. A separate appeal (1096/2004) was filed by Prahlad Singh against the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Though the present appellants were also convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 13th February, 2004 along with aforesaid 22 accused persons but they did not file any appeal at that time. Ultimately, the accused appellants Ram Singh and Kesar Singh submitted this appeal from jail challenging the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below. Taking into consideration the circumstances and holding that the delay appears to be bonafide, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the court on 19th April, 2010 and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The appeal came up for hearing before us on 3rd March, 2011 and the arguments were concluded by both the sides. The accused appellants Ram Singh and Kesar Singh, both sons of Omkar Singh were convicted for the offence under sections 147 and 148 IPC and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Further, the appellants were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Under section 307 read with section 149 IPC, the appellants were sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The prosecution case was initiated on the parcha bayan (Ex.P-17) of one Amar Singh (PW-15) which was recorded by Shivraj Singh (PW-5), SHO police station Sunel on 10th September, 2001 at 9.30 p.m. It was stated in the parcha-bayan that around 6.45 p.m. when Amar Singh was at his residence, he heard a hue and cry of his cousin brother Indra Singh, coming from the agricultural field known as 'Patwari-ka-khet'. When Amar Singh came out of his house, he saw Man Singh, Bahadur Singh, Tanwar Singh, Kalu Lal, Shri Ram Dhakad, Suresh Dhakad, Ram Prasad Dhakad, Bal Chand, Shadi Lal Dhakad, Amar Singh, Bhawani Lal Dhakad, Nanda, Ratti Ram Dhakad, Prahlad son of Pratap Dhakad, Jagdish Dhakad, Prahlad son of Man Singh Dhakad, Indra Singh, Prithvi Singh, Kanhi Ram Dhakad, Bhagwan Dhakad, Prahlad son of Nathu Dhakad, Ram Prasad, Kesar Singh, Ram Singh, Bala Ram Dhakad, Babu Lal, Nand Ram and Man Singh armed with swords, guns, kattas, lathis and gandasis. They caused injuries to Indra Singh and murdered him. Thereafter, the assailants had chased the informant Amar Singh and inflicted injury by a sword on his right hand. Thereafter, the father of informant Bapu Singh tried to intervene and Man Singh opened fire at him, as a result of which Bapu Singh also died. Manohar Singh and Nagu Singh were also murdered by the accused persons. On the said parcha-bayan, a first information report came to be registered against 29 persons for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324 and 323 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced, during the course of which the police collected necessary evidence, prepared memos, recorded statements of the witnesses, got the dead-bodies and the injured examined by the medical jurist, the accused persons were arrested etc. etc. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons. The trial commenced after framing of charges against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 120B, 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC, Section 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced 24 witnesses. In their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and claimed innocence. Four witnesses were then examined in defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced 24 accused persons for the offence afore-mentioned. However, five accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. Aforesaid appeals were filed by 22 persons and the present one has been filed by Ram Singh and Kesar Singh. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that though the prosecution case is said to have been initiated on the parcha bayan (Ex.P-17) of injured eye witness Amar Singh (PW-15) but he was not in a fit condition to narrate anything as he had sustained 12 injuries. Even the doctor (PW-2) had stated that he was in semi-conscious condition. Similarly, Dr. Chauhan (PW-6) had stated that earlier condition of Amar Singh must have been serious and as such he could not have been in a condition to give any statement. Further, it has been submitted by the counsel for the appellants that even in the parcha bayan general allegations have been levelled against the accused appellants. It has also been submitted that Amar Singh informant, like other prosecution witnesses, changed his version and made improvements during the course of trial. Further it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that three accused persons, namely; Man Singh, Bahadur Singh and Ram Prasad were seriously injured and their injury reports are Ex.D-10, 19 and 20 on record. But the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons and as such it casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story and that it had not come with the true version and the manner in which the incident had taken place.
(3.) ON perusal of the evidence on record, it is revealed that the prosecution case is based on ocular evidence of injured witnesses Amar Singh (PW-15), Ishwar (PW-12), Lal Singh (PW-14), Chain Singh (PW-17) and Smt. Bhura Bai (PW-24). The prosecution witness Amar Singh has by and large reiterated before the trial court the version given by him in the parcha bayan (Ex.P-17). The said statement of Amar Singh has been corroborated by the statement of Ishwar Singh, Lal Singh, Chain Singh, Barji Bai and Smt. Bhura Bai. The death of deceased Manohar Singh, Nagu Singh, Inder Singh and Bapu Singh was homicidal in nature as is clearly revealed from the medical evidence on record including the statement of the medical jurist Dr. Anil Kaushik (PW-2). The injuries sustained by deceased Manohar Singh, as given in the post-mortem report (Ex.P-4), are as under: '1. Incised wound 10x5 bone deep brain material out Scalp post occipital parietal 2. Incised wound 2x1/2 B deep chin Rt. Mandible Rt. up lower incisor broken. 3. Incised wound 3x1 B deep obl. Rt. Leg lat.L.1/3 4. Incised wound 6x1xB deep below obl. Tibia Rt. 5. Incised wound 3x1 skin deep obl. Rt. Knee. 6. Incised wound 3x1 bone deep Ft. FA near wrist Ext. surface cut Red ulna bone. 7. Incised wound 3x1xBone deep with tibia left leg up 1/3 laterally. 8. Bruise 7x1-1/2 chest middle area obl. The deceased Nagu Singh has sustained following injuries, in accordance with the post-mortem report (Ex.P-12). 1. penetrating wound 1.5 diameter deep to brain material, frontal bone. 2. Incised wound 3x1 B deep at scalp Rt. Parietal. 3. Incised wound 3x1 Bone deep scalp top left 4. Incised wound 1.5x1x1 left leg medically below knee. 5. Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 left leg front top 1/3. 6. Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 Rt. Thigh laterally 1/3. 7. Abrasion 1x1/4 below Rt. eye. 8. Abrasion 1x1/4 below left eye. 9.Incised wound 1x1/2 upper lip left side. Similarly, deceased Inder Singh had sustained following ante-mortem injuries, as per post-mortem report Ex.P-13). 1. Incised wound 3x1 bone deep (fracture) scalp lat. of occipital area. 2. Incised wound 5x3x bone deep transverse trachea oesophagus cut. 3. Incised wound 6x2x bone deep chin front obliquely with cut mandible. 4. Incised wound 3x1x1/2 cheek rt. side transversely. 5. Stab wound 1x1/2x cavity deep abdomen obliquely 3 below umblicus. Deceased Bapu Singh had sustained injuries, as per post-mortem report (Ex.P-93), as follows: 1. Gunshot injury 1-1/2 diameter circular with blackening in 2 are going from down to upward up to base of the skull. Rt. pallets costal from the wound as well recovered as from brain material both of the skull, plastic circular cover of bullet is also recovered. 2. Incised wound 3x1/2 B deep occipital region. 3. Incised wound 3x1/2 bone deep top of scalp 4. Incised wound 3x1/2x B deep back on VC trans. of liver 5. Incised wound 2x1/4 bone deep left leg up 1/3. 6. Lacerated wound 2x1/2 bone deep Dorsum of hand base of Mid & Rt. 7. Lacerated wound 1x1/2x SK deep Rt. leg L 1/3 skin tibia. It is to be noted that accused Man Singh was medically examined (Ex.D-10) and had sustained following injuries: 1. Incised wound 3x1/2x1/2 on Rt. shoulder. 2. Abrasion 2 in number irregular size. Accused Bahadur Singh had sustained following injuries, as per injury report (Ex.D-19). 1. Incised wound 3-1/2x1x deep to joint Rt. shoulder 2. Incised wound 2x1/2x Muscle deep Rt. Forehead. 3. Incised wound 1x1/4x skin deep left hand posterior laterally. Accused Ram Prasad had sustained injuries as per injury report (Ex.D-20) which are as under: 1. Incised wound 7x1-1/2x bone deep Rt. side of face. 2. Incised wound 4x2x bone deep 3 behind left ear. 3. Incised wound 3x1/2x bone left forehead. It is note worthy to mention here that so far as present appellants Ram Singh and Kesar Singh are concerned, they had not sustained any injury what-so-ever on their person. ;