MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23/12/1988 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Cr. Case No 13/87 by which the two accused-appellants are convicted under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default thereto to undergo for four months simple imprisonment and under Section 325, the accused appellants are convicted for two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default thereto to undergo four months' simple imprisonment and under Section 323, the accused appellants are convicted for six months simple imprisonment and one of the co-accused Champa has been acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
(2.) The contents of Ex.P.4 F.I.R. No.122/1986 reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... This F.I.R was lodged on 24/04/1986 at 9-9.30 AM as F.I.R No.122/1986 at Police Station Delwara by complainant Laala.
(3.) While submitting final submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no positive evidence despite learned trial Court has passed an erroneous judgment by convicting the accused persons, one of the accused Champa has been acquitted, which falsifies entire version of the prosecution, allegedly there was incriminating evidence against Champalal regarding his alleged active participation in the offence, when his guilt is not proved, then how the other co-accused could be held responsible for the alleged offence, testimony of injured witness is also mysterious since he has not uttered anything regarding the injury caused to his deceased father, obviously injured Hakma was not having amicable relations with his deceased father and he could have been an actual culprit in inflicting injuries upon his father, some of the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, nothing concrete is there on the record to substantiate the offence, notwithstanding a wrong finding has emerged, which is not tenable and sustainable, so it be quashed and appeal be allowed. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has contended that case of the prosecution is based on material, ocular, substantive and reliable evidence, injured properly recognized and identified his brother, who was nurturing animosity with entire family owing to property dispute, which promoted him to execute brutal incident, in which late Jeta sustained fatal injuries and injured Hakma suffered grievous injuries, who has narrated actual version of the incident, which is well supported by the medical evidence, there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, which is worthy to be upheld, appeal lacks merit, so it be dismissed.;