K. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE above titled appeal by 4 appellants, namely Ramdayal, Ram Singh, Dalu @ Dalchand and Bhag Chand arises out of the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner: Under Section 302/34 IPc To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10000/ -. Under Section 323/34 IPc To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. Under Section 341 IPc To undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(2.) ON 19. 4. 99 at 8. 00 AM, Ram Dayal S/o Banshi Lal lodged a written report, Ex. P. 19 at Police Station, Kathumar, alleging therein that at 7. 00 AM he left his house for collecting gunny bags from Chunnilal Punjabi of Indira Colony. When he reached near the house of Hareti Jatav, accused Ramdayal, Dalu, Bhag Chand and Ram Singh met him. Dal Chand and Bhag Chand had Farsas in their hands, while Ram Singh had a lathi and Ramdayal had a Ballam. All the accused encircled him near the house of Hareti. He then stated that some altercation had taken place between him and the accused in the Panchayat meeting convened last night and that being the reason, the accused encircled him and started belabouring him with Farsas and Ballam. He stated that accused Bhag Chand struck first blow on his head, as a result of which he fell down on the ground and thereafter all the accused opened attack on him with Farsas and Ballam with an intention to kill him, which resulted in causing injuries on his head, hand and legs. The accused had also threatened to shoot him. Dulli S/o Chuttan, Pilli S/o Kadera and Ram Swaroop S/o Chuttan came there and saved him. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the Police registered a case for offence under Sections 307, 341 and 323 IPC vide FIR Ex. P. 31 (PW. 2), and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of treatment, injured Ramdayal succumbed to his injuries and the police added Section 302 IPC. Having completed investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence and material on recorded framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. Hence this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record. In assailing the conviction, the learned counsel for the appellants have strenuously contended that learned trial Court has committed serious error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence charged with. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Referring the medical evidence, Mr. Biri Singh contended that cause of death of deceased was not the injuries allegedly caused by the accused. The deceased died of excessive bleeding as a consequence of rapture of spleen. He submitted that there were 13 injuries on the person of deceased and none of them, as per the medical evidence, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Learned counsel has taken s to the statement of PW. 8 Dr. Sriram Meena, wherein he has categorically deposed that none of these 13 injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even, according to the doctor, injuries No. 2 to 13 were not on vital part of the body. Learned counsel then submitted that not only the entire prosecution witnesses are highly interested, they have contradicted each other and do not find corroboration with independent witnesses. In this back ground, learned counsel contended that appellants are entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have fully supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and have contended that the learned trial Judge has appreciated the prosecution evidence in true perspective and has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be maintained. We have considered the rival submissions. To appreciate the rival submissions, we feel it appropriate to refer the relevant evidence so as to adjudge the truthfulness of the witnesses. Pw. 5 Ram Swaroop, an eye witness of the incident has deposed that appellant Ram Dayal inflicted a Ballam blow on the middle of leg of deceased, while appellant Ram Singh inflicted lathi blows on the hands and back of deceased. Appellant Dalchand struck Farsa blow on the head by its reverse side and Bagh Chand also struck Farsa blow on the shoulders from its reverse side. However, the injury report, Ex. P. 14 does not disclose any injury on the shoulder of deceased. Pw. 10 Dulli another eye witness has deposed that he saw appellant Ramdayal S/o Ghisa thrusting Ballam in the left leg of deceased Ram Dayal while he was lying on the ground. Accused Ram Singh struck a lathi blow and other inflicted farsa blows. He then stated that deceased sustained injury on his head by farsa. He also sustained injury on his right hand. In cross examination, this witness has stated that Dalchand inflicted farsa blow from its front side. Pw. 1 Hari Ram and Pw. 4 Chunnilal are also stated to have witnessed the incident. Undoubtedly, both these eye witnesses have deposed that appellants inflicted injuries on the person of deceased but they have not been able to state as to which of the appellant inflicted which injury on which part of the body of deceased. Pw. 9 Pilli and Pw. 14 Saheed were also examined as eye witnesses of the incident but they have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. ;