- (1.) THESE appeals stem from the judgment dated July 9, 2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 29/2000, whereby 14 accused were convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused Angrej Singh @ Charan Singh: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for three months U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for one month. U/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for two months. Accused (1) Durga Singh, (2) Babu Lal (3) Ranveer Singh, (4) Vikas Sethi, (5) Dholiya, (6)Virendra Singh, (7) Balla Ram, (8) Bhanwar Lal, (9) Har Lal, (10) Kuldeep Singh, (11) Ram Singh, (12) Pyare Lal and (13) Shimbhu Dayal: U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for one month. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE impugned judgment of learned trial judge has been assailed by the accused appellant Angrej Singh and other 13 accused appellants in Appeals No. 414/2001 and 396/2001. THE State of Rajasthan also called in question the said judgment in Appeal No. 86/2001 and prayed to convict the accused Angrej Singh under Section 364 IPC and other 13 accused under Sections 302/149 and 364 IPC. The prosecution case as pictured during trial was that on June 10, 2000 around 3. 00 AM the employees of liquor contractors, who were petrolling in three jeeps, opened fire at Sri chand (now deceased) and abducted him. The incident had been witnessed by one Om Prakash,who rushed to the Petrol pump of Rameshwar, the maternal uncle of Srichand, and informed him about the occurrence. Rameshwar then telephonically communicated the information to Police Station Sadar Sikar. On arrival of SHO at the Petrol pump Rasidpura, Rameshwar handed over written report. Case under section 147, 149 and 364 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Police party along with Rameshwar and Om Prakash proceeded in search of Srichand in a jeep. Some three miles away of Railway crossing Goriya they saw four jeeps when they reached near the jeep they found dead body of Srichand lying by the conductor side of jeep No. RJ 23 G 919. The dead body got recovered, accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, Charges under Sections 148, 364, 302, 302/149 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence. Accused Angrej Singh stated that he was not arrested from the place of incident and cartridge and revolver were not recovered from his possession. No witness in defence was however examined. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. We have carefully gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and heard the rival submissions. A look at the postmortem report (Ex. P. 39) shows that the deceased received following ante mortem injuries:- " There are 15 to 20 tiny ovular black abrasion present on Rt. cheek sub mandibular area and Rt. side neck. There is penetrating ovular would about 1 x 1 cm x muscle deep. In the wound, piece of cartridge is embedded. The wound is on Rt. side neck below rams of Rt. Mandible. The wound is caused by fire arm. In the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury to Rt. Side neck vessels due to fire arm. Coming to the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution we notice that the informant Rameshwar (PW. 1) was not the eye witness of the occurrence. In his deposition Rameshwar stated that on June 10, 2000 at 2. 00 AM his nephew Srichand along with four other persons came in a jeep No. RJ 23g/919 at his Rasidpura Petrol pump. Out of four persons two were Sri Ram and Viru Bijarnia, Srichand told the informant that he was going to his village. The informant further stated that at 3. 00 AM om Prakash came to the petrol pump and told him that raid party of liquor contractor abducted Srichand and one Angrej Singh opened fire at him. Om Prakash disclosed jeep numbers and the names of members of the raid-party. The informant further stated that he submitted written report to the SHO at Rasidpura, thereafter the SHO took the informant and Om Prakash in the vehicle and proceeded to search Srichand. Some three four miles away of Railway crossing Goriya, they saw four jeeps. Police surrounded the jeeps. Dead body of Srichand was lying by the side of Conductor in Jeep No. RJ 23g/919. As many as 14 persons were present there. Angrej Singh was possessing revolver and belt of bullets.
(3.) BALDEVA Ram (PW. 2), father of the deceased deposed that on the day of incident he was serving at village Losal and around 9- 10 AM in the morning he received message of Srichand's death on telephone. Veeru (PW. 4) and Phool Chand (PW. 5) did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Ratan Lal (PW. 9) deposed that at the instance of accused Angrej Sigh empty of 12 bore got recovered from jeep No. RJ 23c/3609. Sri Ram (PW. 10) in his deposition stated that while he was going in the jeep with Srichand on June 10, 2000 just 3 kilometers ahead of village Badadhar he saw another jeep standing on the road. Seeing that jeep Srichand took U-turn, suddenly somebody opened fire that hit Srichand and also caused injury on the face of Sri Ram. Injuries sustained by Sri Ram got medically examined at S. K. Hospital Sikar. Since Sri Ram did not name the person who opened fire, he was declared hostile. Om Prakash (PW. 16) deposed that on June 10, 2000 around 2. 30 AM while he was going from Rasidpura to Savloda in his jeep RJI 5445, he saw 15-20 persons standing near three jeeps, belonging to liquor contractors of Sikar and Laxmangarh. They checked his jeep and allowed him to proceed. He them stayed to attend the call of nature. In the meanwhile Srichand also came in his jeep, four persons were sitting in the jeep, out of which two were Sri Ram and Veeru. When Jeep of Srichand was being checked, Srichand started his jeep. Suddenly Angrej Singh opened fire and Srichand along with his jeep was taken towards village Badadhar. Om Prakash then turned his jeep towards the petrol pump of Rameshwar, the maternal uncle of Srichand, and informed him about the incident. Rameshwar then gave telephonic message to Police Station Sadar. Om Prakash named Angrej Singh, Durga Singh, Dholiya, Babu Lal, Balram, Vikas, Virendra, Ranvir, Harlal and Bhanwarlal. We thus find that Sri Ram (PW. 10) and Om Prakash (PW. 16) are the only witnesses who throw some light on the incident, Sri Ram did not to the prosecution case and was declared hostile Sri Ram however corroborated this fact that he was sitting in the jeep when Srichand just 3 kilometers ahead of village Badadhar. He saw another jeep standing on the road. Seeing the jeep when Srichand took U-turn, suddenly some one opened fire that hit Srichand and Sri Ram. The witness Om Prakash, who was a casual passer by, deposed that he saw Angrej Singh opened fire and members of raid party of liquor contractor of Sikar and Laxmangarh abducted Srichand. Looking to the fact Om Prakash is a chance witness, we have to judge his testimony by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities. The evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution, keeping in mind that the easy tendency is more often discernible in involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having been seen in the malee. In assessing the value of the evidence of an eye witness, the principle considerations are:- (i) Whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them; and (ii) Whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. ;