BANSAL, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25. 02. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu whereby accused- appellants Hajari, Gopal, Mohan, Ummed Singh and Dharamveer have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer S. I. for one month and to suffer R. I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer S. I. for four months each respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on on 26. 3. 1996 `parcha-bayan' Ex. P14 of PW10 Indrapal S/o Harlal Singh, by caste-Jat, aged 32 years, R/o Kithana, P. S. Chidawa was recorded at 11. 05 p. m. by PW14 Prahlad Singh, ASI, P. S. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu in B. D. K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu wherein it was stated by Indrapal that today at about 7. 30 p. m. he alongwith Raghuveer was coming to his village Kithana from village Sultana by Jeep No. RJ-18c-1241. He was driving the jeep. When they reached near village Kithana, accused Ummed, Daleep, Dharamveer, Gopal, Mohan and Hajari came in Jeep No. RJ-18c-1177 and stopped their jeep in front of his jeep whereupon he also stopped his jeep. All the accused were armed with sariya (iron-rod) and lathies. Accused Ummed hit his jeep with sariya. Thereafter the accused dragged him out the jeep. Accused Ummed exhorted the remaining accused to kill him whereupon they assaulted him with lathies and iron-rods and caused injuries on his legs and forearms. Subhash. Ashok and Raghuveer intervened and rescued him. Thereafter accused- appellants and Daleep fled away. Raghuveer, Subhash and Ashok took him to Jhunjhunu from the spot and got him admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the `parcha-Bayan' Ex. P14, FIR was registered at P. S. Chidawa and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants and co-accused Daleep in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chidawa who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu framed charges under Sections 147 and 307, in the alternate 307/149 IPC against the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Vijendra Singh and PW2 Subhash were examined by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu. Accused Daleep appeared before the Trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against him under Sections 147 and 307, in the alternate 307/149 IPC which were denied by him and he claimed trial. In all the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges. In their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused appellants pleaded innocence and false implication. It was also stated by them that when Indrapal was coming to his village by his jeep he met with an accident and sustained injuries on 26. 03. 96. In defence four witnesses were examined. As accused Daleep did not appear before the Trial Court after statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , separate file was opened for his trial. The learned Trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated here- in-above. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and with their assistance scanned and scrutinised the material on record.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case on accused of previous enmity. As per his contention, PW10 Indrapal met with an accident when he was coming to his village by his jeep and sustained injuries. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged eye-witnesses PW2 Subhash and PW15 Ashok Kumar have not supported the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to being home the charges framed against the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the testimony of injured Indrapal finds support from the testimony of Raghuveer Singh who was the eye-witness of the occurrence and the medical evidence and it has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused injuries on the person of Indrapal with iron-rods and lathies. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. PW10 Indrapal stated that on 26. 03. 96 at about 6. 00- 7. 00 p. m. he along with Raghuveer Singh was returning to his village Kithana by his jeep. he was driving the jeep. When they reached near village Kithana, all the appellants Ummed, Dharamveer, Mohan, Gopal and Hajari along with Daleep came in a jeep belonging to appellant Ummed Singh. Appellant Ummed stopped his jeep in front of his jeep whereupon he also stopped his jeep. The appellants alighted from the jeep, appellant Ummed exhorted the remaining accused to kill him and thereafter all the appellants dragged him out of the jeep and took him to a nearby `babul tree' where he was assaulted and caused injuries by all the appellants with iron-rods and lathies. Indrapal further stated that he shouted for help whereupon Subhash and Ashok came there from PW2 Subhash has not supported the prosecution and as per his statement he had not seen the alleged incident. So far as PW15 Ashok Kumar is concerned, it was deposed by him that Indrapal was assaulted by some persons. On hearing hue and cry he went to the place of occurrence and saw the assailants running from the scene. As per his statement the appellants were not the assailants. It was stated by him that he had seen two jeeps on the spot and Indrapal in injured condition. ;