SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants Ram Sukh, Ramdev and Tara Chand were charged and tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 84/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer vide judgment dated August 11, 2004 convicted and sentenced them as under:- U/s. 304 Part I with the aid of 34 IPC: Each to suffer Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer ten days simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/34 IPC: Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:- On December 23, 1998 at 11. 30 PM the informant Sukhpal (Pw. 20) submitted a written report (Ex. P-27) at police station Mangaliyabas, stating therein that because of chronic litigation with Dr. Subhash the informant and his family members had left their native village Tabiji in 1995. On receiving information that one Mahipal of their village died, the informant, his father Ladu Ram and brother in law Ratan on December 23, 1998 at 2 PM had gone to attend `baithak' to the village and stayed there for fifteen minutes. When they were coming back they were belaboured on the way by Ramsukh, Ramdev, Dr. Subhash, Tara Chand, Norat, Ghishi and Panni, who were armed with swords and axes. Informant sustained injuries and his father died in the incident. Informant some how got himself escaped. Police Station Mangaliyabas registered a case under sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 343 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Post mortem on the dead body was performed, the accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet only against the appellants. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 read with 149 IPC were framed. THE appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. Death of Ladu Ram was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per postmortem report (Ex. P-24) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 16cm x 2cm bone deep on the (R) frontal temporal region, obliquely placed clean cut margin with clotted blood. 2. Incised wound 2cm x 1cm bone deep on the chin. 3. Incised wound on (R) forearm 2cm x 1cm bone deep. 4. Incised wound on (R) little finger & (R) ring finger measuring 1 x 0. 5cm skin deep 1x1cm skin deep. 5. Incised wound 14cm x 3cm bone deep (L) arm ant. lat. Clean cut margin obliquely placed. 6. Incised wound on the (L) elbow laterally 4cm x 2cm bone deep. 7. Incised wound 3cm x 2cm bone deep above injury No. 6. 8. Incised wound 2cm x 1cm bone deep (L) forearm middle 1/2 obliquely placed clean cut margin. 9. Incised wound (L) index finger dorsally 2 x 1cm bone deep. 10. Incised wound on the (L) side of chest in mid axillary line 11cm x 2cm bone deep obliquely placed clean cut margin. 11. Incised wound 3cm x 2cm bone deep on (R) leg below knee with //of shelf of tibia & febula underneath the wound. 12. Incised wound on the (L) knee 13cm x 2cm bone deep fracture of (L) patella. 13. Incised wound on the (L) leg laterally 10cm x 2cm bone deep/ (L) leg bone in middle 1/3 part anteriorly. 14. Incised wound 9cm x 3cm bone deep on (L) leg below injury No. 13 fracture of lower lid of both leg bones. 15. Incised wound (L) foot dorsally 7cm x 3cm bone deep fracture of Metacorsal bone In the opinion of Dr. R. K. Mathur (Pw. 16) the cause of death was come due to head injury. As per injury report (Ex. P-33) the injuries sustained by Sukhpal (Pw. 20) are as under:- 1. Superficial abrasion 1 1/2 x 1/4 cm linear oblique over front of left wrist joint. 2. Bruise irregular margin 1 1/2 x 1cm over medial side of right thigh. We have heard the submissions and weighed the material on record. Taking conspectus of the prosecution evidence we notice that informant Sukhpal (Pw. 20) and Ratan (Pw. 18) are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. Sukhpal supporting the version of the written report, in addition of three appellants, named Dr. Subhash Maheshwari and Norat and deposed that while attending the `baithak' of late Mahipal when they were returning, all the five assailants armed with axes belaboured them near the house of Padam Jain. Ram sukh then inflicted axe blow on the neck of his father, Doctor gave blow with axe over the forehead of his father,tara Chand then caused injury with axe on the ulna of informant, when they proceeded further they found Smt. Ghishi and Smt. Lali who hurled stones, that caused injury on the right thigh of informant. He did not know as to where his brother-in- law had gone. The informant and his father then rushed to the `bad a' of Narain Bhil where they found `kanton ki Bad' (partition made of thrones ). The informant could scale the `bad' but his father could not. The informant helped his father to cross the Bad. Shirt of informant was stained with the blood of his father. As soon as they came out of the Bad, Dr. Subhash, Tara Chand, Norat, Ramdev and Ramsukh surrounded them. Tara Chand then inflicted axe blow on the abdomen of his father as a result of which he fell down, Ramdev then gave axe blow on his hand. The informant again scaled the `bad' and saw the assailants inflicting injuries to his father. In that helpless situation the informant went back to the house of Narain Jakhad and narrated the incident to him. Narain Jakhad made the informant to sit in a jeep in which he went to Nasirabad where his brother Ganesh resided. Ganesh had gone to Pokran. Around 10. 30 PM he went to police station to lodge the report. The police took him to the place of incident next day and drew site plan.
(3.) RATAN (Pw. 18) in his deposition stated that he along with Ladu his father in law and Sukhpal, his brother in law had gone to village Tabiji to the house of Narain whose son was dead. They stayed in the house of Narain for 15-20 minutes and proceeded back. After they crossed 10-12 houses, Ramsukh inflicted axe blow on the neck of Ladu, Subhash gave axe blow on the head, Tara Chand gave axe blow to Sukhpal but it could only cause abrasion on the hand. Ladu and Sukhpal were 50 steps away from him. When they turned towards the street Ramsukh, Tarachand, Ramdev, Subhash and Norat gave blows to Ladu. He (RATAN) then got himself seated in a truck and proceeded to village Makhupura and then took a bus and went to Nasirabad. Narain (Pw. 17) in his deposition stated that Ladu, Ratan and Sukhpal (informant) came to village Tabiji to attend the Baithak organised on the occasion of demise of his son. They stayed for about 15-20 minutes and proceeded back. After some time Sukhpal came back in disturbing state and told him that Ramdev, Ramsukh and Tarachand were beating his father. He then made Sukhpal to sit in a jeep who proceeded to Nasirabad. Thereafter he went to the house of Narain Bhil where about 150 persons were gathered and Ladu was lying dead near the house of Narain Bhil. His son sukhpal then informed the police on telephone. Sukhpal son of Narain (Pw. 5) in his deposition stated that on the death of his brother Mahipal a `baithak' was organised. Ladu and Sukhpal along with one person came to attend the Baithak. They remained there for about 15-20 minutes then proceeded back. After some time Sukhpal son of Ladu came rushing to his house and told him that Ramsukh,ramdev, Tarachand, Subhash Maheshwari were beating his father. He (Sukhpal s/o Narain) along with other persons proceeded to the spot where they found Ladu lying dead near the house of Bhil. He then informed the police over telephone. ;