- (1.) Accused Sunda, Balia, Chandra, Ganpat, Kishna, Ganga son of Jiwan, Hanuman, Padma, Murli, Ganga son of Kana and Barji were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in connection with an occurrence dated 3rd May, 1972 which took place in village Pujari-bas at Dhani Jamnasagar. Place of occurrence is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Srimadhopur. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is half a mile. In this incident six persons on the side of the complainant, namely, Jodhraj (since deceased), Rameshwar, Jagdisb, Ramavtar, Jhunthalal and Mathura were injured. In the same incident accused Balia, Hanuman and Mst. Birji were also injured. Jddhraj was shifted at the hospital Srimadhopur for medical aid but in the way he succumbed to his injuries. The first information report of this occurrence Ex. P. 10, was recorded at the police station, Srimadhopur on the same day at 12.30 p. m. i. e. within 21/2 hours of the occurrence. This first information report was recorded on the basis of the written report Ex. P. 8 lodged by P. W.1 Ramavtar. Autopsy on the dead body of Jodhraj was performed by P. W. 16 Dr. Ramakant Purohit. The post-mortem report is Ex.P. 1. Dr. Ramakant noticed following external injuries on the dead body of Jodhraj: 1. Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2" x ⅓" on the right side of head 21/2" behind frontal eminence ; 2. Lacerated wound 2"x 1/2 x bone deep on the left side of head 1/2" behind frontal eminence, having antero posterior direction. 3. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x ⅛" on the middle line of head 6" anterior to occipital protuberance. 4. Bruise on the upper left eye lid 1" x ⅓". 5. Haemctoma 3' x 2" on the left side of forehead. On opening the dead body he noticed depressed fracture on the left side of frontal bone. The membrance as well as the brain were also injured below that fracture and a lot of blood was present there. In his opinion the cause of death of Jodhraj was shock and haemorrhage caused by afore-mentioned injuries to the skull and brain. Dr. Ramakant P. W. 16 found that injury No. 2 was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against all the 9 accused persons in the court of Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana who committed them to take them to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and prosecution examined 21 witnesses In support of their case out of whom P. W. 1 Ramavtar, P. W. 2 Rameshwar, P. W. 8 Jhunthe Lal, P. W. 9 Mathura Prasad and P. W. 12 Jagduh are injured eye - witnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 3 Rameshwar Lal son of Tikuram, P.W. 4 Jagdish son of Kanhaiya Lal and P. W. 5 Radha Kishan are alleged to be independent eye-witnesses of the occurrence. All the accused denied their complicity in the crime. They further stated that the members of the complainant party assaulted them while throwing their sticks which were lying on the land. They examined two witnesses, namely, Dr. Mohan Singh, D. W. 1 and Ramkumar Compounder D. W. 2 in support of their plea,
(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the statements of P. W. 3 Ramehshwar and P. W. 5 Radha Kishan to be unreliable. He, however, held that in spite of minor contradictions appearing in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses, the substratum of their statement was reliable. He further held that the presence of the injured eye-witnesses on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. Placing reliance on their statements corroborated by the medical evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned below : JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(RAJ)5_19781.html All the sentences of the accused-appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) Controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass and we are not required to deal in detail the prosecution evidence and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to prove their case, because the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellants, keeping in view the preponderance of prosecution evidence, has rightly submitted that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the fact that the assault did take place in the manner and at the place alleged by the prosecution, and in that event Jodh Singh sustained injuries as a result of which he met his death. However, we have also looked into the relevant portion of the evidence and are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond any manner of reasonable doubt and the learned counsel has rightly discarded the defence evidence.;