K. S. SIDDHU, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two connected appeals arising out of two different trials, but relating to the crimes alleged to have been committed in! the course of the same transaction. The appellants in the first appeal are seven of the twelve accused who were convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, under Sec. 148, 447 & 302 - 149 IPC vide his judgment dated, March 8, 1976. The appellants in the second appeal are three in number, who were similarly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial judge subsequently on January 27, 1978.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On October 16, 1973, morning, Narain, Jawahara, Lekhu, Kharga and Pokher were working in their bajra field and plucking bajra spikes from there. It appears that this field originally belonged to one Ladoo Ram who died a month or so prior to this occurrence. Jawahara, who was plucking bajra spikes of the crop standing in this field at the time of occurrence, claimed to have inherited this land from Ladoo Ram as the latters adopted son. Kana & Sukhdeva accused are sons of a brother of Ladoo Ram. THEy disputed Jawahara's title to, this land and instead claimed that they were its rightful owners. THE prosecution story as given in the F. I. R. goes that on October 16, 1973, at about 10-00 A. M. Kana Ram along with his son, Rameshwar, wife Sikori, son-in law. Prem, two daughters-in-laws (i. e. Rameshwar's wife and Bhagirath's wife), brother Sukhdeva, Bhagirath and Ram Niwas sons of Sukhdeva, Bali wife of Sukhdeva, Ganpati daughter of Sukhadeva, Naurang Ram son - in - law of Sukhdeva, Dhanna, Nazir Khan and Sukhdeva II arrived in the field armed with Lathis and Gandasis & began to abuse & threaten Jawahara and other stating that they would not let them harvest the crop. It is alleged that the men of the accused party were all carrying lathis and the women were armed with gandasis All of them began to strike indiscriminate blows on Jawahara and Naraina with their respective weapons. Jawahara sustained 23 injuries including 12 fractures. Naraina sustained 26 injuries including 12 fractures. THEy died on the spot. Kharga, Lekhu and Pokher who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence escaped unhurt. PWs. Mahadeva and Jhabar whose names were not mentioned in the F. I. R. as eye-witnesses of the occurrence were produced in the trial among the eye-witnesses. The report of the occurrence was made in writing by Kharga Ram the same day at 4. 45 P. M. This delay of 6 or 7 hours in lodging the FIR was sought to be explained on a number of circumstances. It is alleged that instead of going to the police station concerned, i. e. Raghunathgarh, Kharga Ram rushed to the village Dispensary and on finding that the doctor was not available in the Dispensary he went by train to Sikar, hired a jeep from there and returned to the scene of the crime and discovered that both Jawahara arid Naraina were lying dead there. It is further alleged that Kharga Ram thereafter went back to Sikar, got a report typed out from typist and submitted it to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar. The latter ordered the S. H. O. Sadar Thana, Sikar to take up the initial investigation. Virmani (PW. 10) S. H. O. thana Sadar reached the scene of crime, forwarded the written report to P. S. Raghunathgarh for registration of a formal F. I. R. and carried on investigation till Madan Singh (PW. 11) S. H. O. Raghunathgarh arrived there and took over the investigation from him. On investigation, the police forwarded 12 accused including 5 women, for proceedings of commitment preparatory to their trial under section 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC. The other three accused namely Nazir Khan, Prem and Sukhdeva II were reported to be absconding at the time of the presentation of the final police report in the court. They were arrested subsequently and therefore tried separately. During the trial of these 12 accused, the prosecution examined, among others, Kharga Ram, Mahadeva, Lekhu Ram, Jhabarmal, Dr. Jangid, K. D. Virmani and Madan Singh as witnesses in support of its case. One of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence who is conspicuous by his non production is Pokhar. By and large these witnesses supported the prosecution case as narrated above. The same set of witnesses were produced and examined by the prosecution in the second trial. Pokhar who was not examined in the first trial, was examined in the second trial but he did not support the prosecution case and was therefore declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor. It may also be mentioned here that Jhabarmal who had supported the prosecution case in the first trial did not support it in the second trial vis-a-vis Sukhdeva.
(3.) DR. Jangid who conducted the post mortem examination found 23 and 26 injuries on the dead bodies of Jawahra and Naraina respectively. All the injuries on them were found to have been inflicted with blunt weapons. DR. Jangid testified that both Jawahra and Naraina had died due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the said injuries. The learned trial judge therefore concluded, and rightly so in our opinion, that both Jawahra and Naraina had met with homicidal death. On the question as to who had inflicted these injuries to the two deceased 'he learned trial judge found that since all the women accused were said to have been armed with Gandasi and since there was not a single Gandasi injury to be found on any of the deceased, the women accused deserved to be given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, he acquitted all the five women accused holding that none of the charges framed against them under sections 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC had been proved. Relying on the ocular evidence consisting of the depositions of PWs Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram, Mahadeva and Jhabarmal, he found Kana Sukhdeva. Dhanna, Naurang, Bhagirath, Rameshwar and Ram-Niwas guilty of the offences punishable under section 148, 447 and 302-149 IPC on the basis of the evidence of PWs. Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram and Mahadeva. The lesser punishment of imprisonment for life was awarded to each of the accused under section 302-149 I. P. C. All the three sentences in both the cases were ordered to run concurrently. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, we are far from satisfied that the evidence produced is of such a character on which one may put implicit reliance and convict as many as ten persons of the crime of murder. It will be recalled that the trial court itself was not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of PWs. Kharga Ram, Lekhu Ram, Mahadeva and Jhabarmal to the extent that they tried to implicate the five women accused in the commission of this crime. Jhabarmal did not support the prosecution case in the second trial The prosecution itself sot him declared hostile. We must therefore exercise extra care and caution in scrutinising the evidence of all these witnesses. ;