MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 15.11.2003, who thereby convicted nine accused namely; Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal, Bal Chand, Champa Lal, Jagannath, Sujan, Badri Lal, Kanhi Ram and Onkar for offence under section 302/149 IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of which, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. Each of them was also convicted them for offence under section 147 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 200, in default of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months each and also for offence under section 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment of two years each with fine of Rs. 300, in default of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months each. In the self same judgement, three of the accused namely; Amar Lal, Pani Bai and Shanti Bai were acquitted of the charges. One of the accused Laxmi Narayan died during trial and therefore the proceedings against him were dropped. Those nine convicted accused originally filed the instant appeal before this Court in the year 2003. The appeal was earlier decided vide judgement dated 31.7.2007 by a coordinate bench of this Court where-under conviction and sentence awarded to accused Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal, Bal Chand, Sujan and Badri Lal was maintained. However, conviction and sentence awarded to accused-appellant Champa Lal, Jagannath, Kanhi Ram and Onkar Lal was set aside and consequently, they were acquitted of all the charges. The State Government preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgement on grant of leave, being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 543/2008, which was decided by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 13.5.2015 in the following terms: "Having perused the impugned judgment, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, dated 31.07.2007, we are of the view, that even though the statements of Poori Bai, PW1 and Geeta Bai, PW7, i.e., two principal witnesses, were discussed summarily, the conclusion draw with reference to their cross-examination has not been based on any discussion. With reference to cross-examination, the High Court had observed, that these two witnesses had made improvements, exaggerations and embellishments in cross-examination. The details of the same do not emerge from the discussion in the impugned judgment. Insofar as the reasons for recording the conviction of the appellants and the acquittal of some of the accused are concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder: 'On analysing the testimony of Poori Bai and Geeta Bai from the point of trustworthiness we find that it is consistent so far as the allegations against appellants Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal, Badra Lal, Bal Chand and Sujan are concerned. Participation of appellants Champa Lal, Jagan Nath, Kanhi Ram and Onkar Lal however could be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the FIR, it was stated by Poori Bai that they inflicted lathi blows on the person of Narain whereas at the trial injuries with Ballam and Pharsi were attributed to lacchu and Onkar. Having separated chaff from the grain in the prosecution evidence, we do find it reliable and creditworthy against appellants Champa lal, Jagan Nath, Kanhi Ram and Onkar Lal. Possibility of their over implication in the case, cannot be ruled out.' We find no justification whatsoever for the conclusions draw, as the same are sketchy, and do rely on the particulars of the evidence taken into consideration. For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the judgment rendered by the High Court deserves to be set aside, with reference to the appellants before this Court. Ordered accordingly. The matter needs to be remanded back to the High Court for re-examination, in consonance with the principles laid down for the disposal of first appeals. Accordingly, the case before the High Court is ordered to be restored to its original number. The High Court shall discuss the evidence, and adjudicate upon the controversy as a first appeal. The instant appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
(2.) The perusal of the afore-quoted judgement of the Supreme Court indicates that appeal was preferred by accused Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal, Bal Chand and Badri Lal. There is no reference to the fact whether the appeal was also preferred by accused Sujan. But admittedly the State did file any appeal against the earlier judgement of this Court whereby the accused Champa Lal, Jagannath, Kanhi Ram and Onkar Lal were acquitted. Therefore, the Supreme Court has disturbed the earlier judgment of this court qua them. It is in this background that we have to consider the present appeal again in so far as the accused-appellant Ram Narayan, Shiv Lal and Bal Chand are concerned because it is borne out from the copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court that name of appellant Badri Lal was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 14.12.2012 as he died during the pendency of the appeal. The conviction and sentence awarded to Sujan, having been challenged by him, thus would remain undisturbed.
(3.) The facts essential for deciding the present appeal need to be noticed first of all. The first information report in the present case was registered on the basis of parcha bayan (Ex.P1) of Smt. Puri Bai, wife of deceased Narayan Tanwar, resident of Village Kushalpura, Police Station Bakani, which was recorded by the SHO at 9.30 PM on 28.4.2001 in the Government Hospital, Bakani wherein she alleged that she had gone to market of Bakani village at 6.00 pm on that day. Her husband Narayan had gone to the shop of Ram Niwas Brahmin for buying tea dust. Suddenly, Ram Narayan S/o Champa Lal, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat came there with his relatives, who were all armed with different kind of weapons. Ram Narayan inflicted a 'farsi' blow from the sharp side on the head of her husband with intention to commit his murder. On receiving such injury, her husband fell on the ground. Shiv Lal S/o Bhawani Singh Tanwar then inflicted a 'farsi' blow on his legs. Badri Lal son of Bhenru Tanwar inflicted a sword blow. Bal Chand S/o Heera Lal Tanwar and Sujan S/o Amar Tanwar inflicted 'farsi' blow on his legs. Her husband started bleeding from different parts of the body. Champa Lal, Bhawani Singh, Onkar, Mangi Lal and Jagannath gave him beating by 'lakris'. Amar Lal Tanwar, who was present there, was instigating all the accused to kill Narayan. Smt. Puri Bai then stated in the parcha bayan that she and her sister in law (elder sister of deceased) rushed for rescue of Narayan and both of them fell on the body of Narayan and they too were subjected to beatings by 'lakris'. Then Ram Narayan, Sarpanch and other accused fled away in their tractor. Bal Mukund, her son-Sanwariya, daughter-Mangi Bai and sister-in-law Geeta Bai have seen this incident. Nanu Ram and Kanwar Lal were also at that time present there. Smt. Puri Bai further alleged that the accused have murdered her husband because they doubted that he was responsible for burning of the fodder in their agriculture field. On informing the police, the SHO brought her husband in seriously injured condition to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.;