MEENA V.GOMBER - (1.) THE appellants named herein-above have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, (Jaipur) in Sessions Case No.19/1999 whereby the accused appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced as under:- i) Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default whereof to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. ii) Three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. iii) One year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323/149 I.P.C. iv) Three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default whereof to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/149 I.P.C. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court. Briefly stated, facts of the case as culled out by the prosecution are that on the basis of Exhibit P-2 report submitted by complainant Sita Ram on 29.6.1999 at about 3:45 AM, case was registered at Police Station Kotputali, District Jaipur and FIR Ex.P-3 was chalked. The narration therein was that at about 9:00 AM when complainant's mother Smt.Surji and sister Kumari Rajesh were cutting grass in their field, accused persons namely Rameshwar, Babu Lal, Suresh, Mooli and Teeja came there and took out gold earrings from the ears of Kumari Rajesh and on Suji's trying to save her, accused persons viz. Rameshwar and Teeja inflicted lathi blows upon her head as also on nose. On hearing ruckus when Hanuman came to rescue his daughter and wife, he was assaulted by Chhitar, Hari Ram, Mahesh, Banwari, Rameshwar, Babu Lal, Suresh, Jamuna, Mooli, Teeja, etc. All of them inflicted injuries on him as also on Surji and Kumari Rajesh. Witnesses Lallu Ram, Jagdish and Amar Singh witnessed the occurrence and saved them. He took his injured father, mother and sister to the hospital.
(2.) ON the basis of Exhibit P-2 case was registered for offence under Section 147, 148, 447, 307, 323 and 379 I.P.C but later on, on account of death of Hanuman, in the hospital, the police converted the case from Sec.307 IPC to offence under Section 302 I.P.C. After usual investigation, police filed chargesheet against eight accused persons namely Jamuna, Mooli, Teeja, Chhitar, Banwari, Hari Ram, Suresh and Babu Lal. Learned Trial Judge, on receipt of the case by way of committal, read over the charges to the accused persons for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 302 and 149 I.P.C. which were denied by them and trial was claimed. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They exhibited 9 documents and examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Banwari and DW-2 Banshi. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, acquitted three ladies Jamuna, Mooli and Teeja of all the offences, however, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner mentioned above vide impugned judgment which has been assailed by way of this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr.Gupta appearing on behalf of the accused appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:- i) The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that true genesis of occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution and the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution could not prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. ii) Second argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants was that most of the prosecution witnesses are close relatives and hence interested. iii) Third argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants was that there are considerable improvements and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and learned Trial Court has erred by basing its finding of conviction on such evidence. iv) Fourth argument advanced by learned counsel for appellants was that medical evidence produced by prosecution is insufficient to hold the appellants guilty of offence they were charged with. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Trial Court has ignored a very important aspect of the matter that at the instance of appellants, cross case was registered against the complainant party which although culminated in filing final report but the fact is that the incident did not occur in the manner claimed to have occurred by the prosecution. The prosecution's case is that incident occurred at 9.00 AM in the field of deceased Hanuman (as shown in Ex.P-4) which is adjacent to the boundary of the houses of appellants Banwari, Chhitar and Rameshwar. The lodger of FIR PW-2 Sita Ram is the son of deceased Hanuman who is said to have taken the injured persons to the hospital. The accused persons also sustained injuries and lodged the report (Exhibit P-7) and one of the accused Banwari was also medically examined and his Injury Report has been proved as Ex.D-6. His argument was that since there are two conflicting versions regarding the manner in which the incident is said to have occurred, it is necessary to first appreciate and come to a definite conclusion whether the incident occurred as claimed by the prosecution i.e. at place 'X' in Ex.P-1 marked in the field belonging to the deceased or whether the incident occurred at the place pointed out by appellants in their FIR (Exhibit D-7) lodged on 29.6.1999 itself.;