SHARMA, J. - (1.) CALAMITY be-fell on the family of Jagdish Narayan, who lost his life in a trifle dispute. Badri Narayan, Rameshwar, Seeta Ram and Amar Lal @ Lal Chand, appellants herein, were put to trial for having committed murder of Jagdish Narayan, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, who vide judgment dated August 18, 2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:- Badri Narayan U/s. 302 and Rameshwar, Seeta Ram and Amar Lal @ Lal Chand u/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this:- Informant Mahesh Kumar (Pw. 5), at SMS Hospital Jaipur handed over a written report (Ex. P-2) on January 13, 1996 at 6. 15 PM to SHO Police Station Jamwa Ramgarh stating therein that on the said day around 8 AM his father Jagdish Narayan left home to go to the village and while he reached near the house of Rameshwar, Rameshwar started hurling abuses at him and demanded money, his father, in turn, asked for settlement of account. Thereupon Rameshwar started beating his father, meanwhile Badri Narayan also came over there and inflicted 6- 7 blows with Jelly on the head and other parts of body of his father. As a result of beating his father fell down and blood started oozing out from his nose, mouth and ears. Still all the four brothers and their ladies pelted stones. His elder brother Kanhaiya Lal was also beaten up by Badri Narayan who gave two blows on the waist of Kanhaiya Lal. His father, who was unconscious, was removed to hospital where he died during the course of treatment. On that report case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 341/323, 356/504 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation Jagdish Narayan succumbed to his injuries and Section 302 IPC was added. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants only. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur City. Charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. One witness Jagdish Narayan Sharma (Dw. 1) was examined in support of defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. We have heard rival submissions and scanned the material on record. A look at Postmortem Report (Ex. P-8) demonstrates that the deceased had sustained following antemortem injuries:- 1. It defined swelling Lt. frontal Lt. prietal, Lt. temporal and upto infront of lt. ear with two lacerated wounds 0. 3cm x 0. 2cm x skin deep about 3cm infront of tragus of lt. ear and another of. 5cm x 0. 2cm x muscle deep about 3cm above the lacerated wound mentioned. 2. Bruise 3cm x 2cm lt. ear pinna posteriorly, oblique red colour. 3. Bruise 8cm x 3cm on left shoulder and adjacent arm laterally oblique red colour. 4. Abrasion 1cm x 0. 8cm on lt. ring finger proximal phalynx dorsally. 5. Abrasion. 8cm x 0. 5cm on lt. ring finger proximal inter phalyngeal joint dorsally. 6.Abrasion 0. 8cm x 0. 5cm on back of chest lower 1/3rd in mid line. In the opinion of Dr. P. N. Mathur (Pw. 22) the cause of death was head injury. Dr. Ram Swaroop (Pw. 7) however deposed that on January 13, 1996 one Shravan Lal requested him to treat his father who was beaten up by residents of Dhani. He acceded the request and proceeded to the house of injured. Finding his condition serious, he referred the injured to SMS Hospital Jaipur. In his cross examination he admitted that although it was a medicolegal case, he did not inform the police. It is canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that from holistic reading of the evidence it appears that genesis of the incident had been suppressed. The learned trial Court did not take note of the site-plan which shows that the house of Rameshwar (appellant) did not fall on the way of regular route. The deceased had arrived to the house for his own purposes. According to learned counsel the conduct of two grown up sons of the deceased viz. Mahesh Kumar (Pw. 5) and Kanhaiya (Pw. 11) in not intervening while their father was waylaid and attacked, was highly unnatural.
(3.) HAVING scrutinised the entire material on record we notice that the prosecution case is founded primarily on the testimony of Sheopa Ram (Pw. 1), Jagdish Narayan (Pw. 4), Mahesh Kumar (Pw. 5) and Kanhaiya Lal (Pw. 11 ). Sheopa Ram (Pw. 1) in his cross examination deposed that on the date of incident there was a scuffle between Rameshwar and Jagdish (deceased ). He stated thus: ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... Jagdish Narayan (Pw. 4) also deposed that there was a quarrel and abuses were hurled. He stated thus:- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... He further deposed that Rameshwar inflicted lathi blow on the left temporal region of Jagdish:- ;