SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE the controversy involved in all the three criminal appeals, arise out of the same FIR number and same Judgment, hence, they are being decided by this common Judgment.
(2.) BY filing instant criminal appeals under section 374 Cr. P. C. , the accused appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31. 7. 1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 14/1983, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under: S. 326 IPC (Accused appellant Sawai Singh): Four years Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 500/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Rigorous Imprisonment. S. 326/149 IPC (Accused appellants Onkar, Bhagota, Bharatmal and Bhalla): Two years Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 300/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, they shall undergo two months' Rigorous Imprisonment. S. 323/149 IPC (Accused appellant Sawai Singh, Onkar, Bhagota, Bharatmal & Bhalla): Three months' Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 200/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment. S. 147 IPC (Accused appellants Sawai Singh, Onkar, Bhagota, Bharatmal & Bhalla): One year Rigorous Imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case, as set up by the prosecution are that on 29. 3. 1982, complainant Babu Singh, submitted a written report at P. S. Pragpura, alleging therein that yesterday at about 4:00 PM, there was not exchange between accused Sawai Singh and accused party. Thereafter when Babu Singh, Bajrang Singh started accused persons namely; Sawai Singh, Onkar, Dhansi, Gyarsa, Bhagata, Bharatmal, threw stones on them, the result of which Bajrang Singh sustained stone injury. When Ghasi Singh came to know about the injury of Bajrang Singh he came on spot, Sawai Singh gave farsi blow on his head due to which Ghasi Singh fell down. Bharat Lal Meena gave lathi thinsa to Babu Singh, Bhagata caught hands of Babu Singh and other accused persons gave beating to him. The police on the basis of this written report, registered an FIR for the offence under sections 324, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and started investigation. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 336, 307 and 326 IPC. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.
(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were exhibited. THEreafter, the statements of the accused appellants u/s. 313 Crpc were recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide Judgment 31. 7. 1986 as mentioned above. The accused appellants being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence have preferred the instant criminal appeal. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for accused appellants Bharat Mal Meena and Baldev @ Balla, submits that the prosecution has failed to give explanation about the injuries that where accused persons sustained injuries during occurrence. He submits that prosecution witnesses have made improvements and contradictions in their testimony. He submits that PW. 2 Pooran Mal has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. He submits that the presently accused appellants have falsely been implicated by the police. Lastly he submits that the story of prosecution regarding place of occurrence is absolutely doubtful because as per the site plan prepared by the I. O. , the occurrence took place in front of the house of accused Sawai Singh and blood was found there on the spot. The prosecution witnesses during their evidence in trial changed the place of occurrence and stated that occurrence took place near shop of one Madan. In this way, the prosecution witnesses have changed the story and place of occurrence which makes whole prosecution story doubtful and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. Thus, the learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants. ;