Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The accused-appellant-Lal Chand and other co-accused-Om Prakash Premchand, Nandlal and Harish Kumar were indicted before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota in Sessions Case No. 176/92 for having committed murder of Ramlal. Learned trial Judge did not find co-accused-Om Prakash, Premchand, Nandlal and Harish Kumar guilty and acquitted them. The appellant-Lal Chand was however found guilty u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 27.2.1997. Against this judgment of conviction that the present action of filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant-Lal Chand.
(2.) The prosecution story is woven like this, Devilal (PW-2) on 7.6.1991 submitted a written report with the police station Suket at around 9.30 a.m. with'the averments that their agriculture land was situated near the land of Lal Chand. Initially Lal Chand used to carry his bullock cart through the land of one Kesarilal but when Kesarilal refused to alldw his bullock-cart, Lal Chand started carrying bullock cart from their land. On being protested by the informant, Lal Chand threatened to kill him. On the date of the incident when Lal Chand as usual was taking his cart through their land, he was obstructed by the complainant party. Thereupon Lal Chand and his sons Prem and Harish Kumar rushed towards them. Lalchand inflicted lathi blow on the back of the informant Devilal who in turn snatched lathi and inflicted lathi blow on the person of Lalchand, who fell down. Lalchand then asked his son Harish Kumar to bring 12 bore gun. Harish Kumar brought the gun and gave it to Lal Chand who opened fire, which hit on the right eyebrow of Ramlal (now deceased). At that time Bhanwarlal, Nand Kishore, Chhotu, Hari Shankar and Nandlal were present. Police Station Suket registered an FIR No. 97/1991 u/s. 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. Site-plan was drawn. Inquest report was prepared. Accused were arrested and on the basis of disclosure statement of Lalchand, gun was recovered and sent for ballistic examination. Statements of the witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota. Charges u/ss. 302, 148, 323, 447, 302/149, 147, 323/149 & 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents. In the explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused claimed innocence and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of malice as their land was encroached upon by the complainant party. However, no evidence in defence was produced by the accused. On hearing the final submissions the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant-Lalchand as indicated hereinabove.
(3.) Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned counsel appearing for the accused- appellant pointed out following infirmities in the prosecution case: (i) Informant Devilal, the author of FIR disowned the FIR and stated that it was not lodged by him. (ii) The genesis of the occurrence has been withheld by the prosecution. The gun was allegedly fired at a distance of about 14 steps that could not cause blackening but slight blackening was found over the wound received by the deceased. (iii) The injuries sustained by the accused-appellant were not explained by the prosecution. (iv) Report of ballistic examination of the gun was suppressed by the prosecution and no plausible explanation was given. (v) It is established from the material on record that competent Court issued stay order in favour of the accused-appellant in regard to the land in dispute and the complainant party was aggressor, and (vi) The prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused-appellant beyond the reasonable doubts.;