Hence companyviction of accused Surja Ram under Section 302 of IPC cannot be maintained because of companytradiction in the statement With this view the High Court acquitted Surja Ram of all the charges.
While passing along they found Jeevan Ram on the road, whereupon the jeep was stopped and Hapu Ram and Surja Ram got down.
The companyvicted accused carried the matter by filing DB Crl.
One of them named Chatra Ram was granted pardon and was examined as PW1 in the trial.
In the appeals preferred by companyvicted accused, the High Court affirmed the companyviction and sentence of Hapu Ram under Section 302 of IPC while acquitting him of the other charges.
The sentences were to run companycurrently.
The witness further stated that before strangulating him, Hapu Ram had asked Jeevan Ram to marry his younger daughter with him.
This matter is therefore restricted as regards challenge to the acquittal of Surja Ram by the High Court .
The jeep was then taken towards Bidasar.
The cross examination also did number challenge such assertion by the witness that both Hapu Ram and Surja Ram had made Jeevan Ram get down from the vehicle near the well.
The Respondent Surja Ram be taken in custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to him.
The witness stated that he and Mohan Ram resisted but Hapu Ram said that they be dropped at Nagaur otherwise he would kill all of them.
Father Jeevan Ram told the companyplainant to proceed with the Motor Cycle while he would return in the tractor of one Mohan Ram.
Initially six Persons were alleged to have companymitted offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 149, 364, 302 , 201 read with Section 120B of IPC.
Referring to the testimony PW1 Chatra Ram, it was submitted that the role of Hapu Ram and Surja Ram as stated by the witness in his examination in chief was Both Hapu Ram and Surja Ram had got down and brought Jeevan Ram forcibly and made him sit in the vehicle.
After bringing the vehicle close to the well, Hapu Ram and Surja Ram made Jeevan Ram get down.
1,000/ .
The other two accused Bhanwru Ram and Mohan Ram were acquitted of all the charges.
The Trial Court found that the case was established as against Hapu Ram,Surja Ram and Raju Ram.
Out of five accused who faced the trial, Bhanwru Ram and Mohan Ram were acquitted by the Trial Court.
Hapu Ram and Surja Ram made Jeevan Ram get down, then strangulated him by the cycle tube and threw him in the well.
The report further stated that his father had since then number returned.
It companyvicted Hapu Ram and Surja Ram for the offences under Sections 341, 364, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, while the other accused named Raju Ram was companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
After going for about 15 20 kms from Village Katar, the jeep was stopped near a well by the side of the road.
P21 written by Hapu Ram stating that his marriage with the daughter of Jeevan Ram should number be cancelled and had given threats therein.
Mr. Puneet Parihar, learned advocate appearing for State of Rajasthan submitted that the assessment made by the High Court was companypletely incorrect.
Pursuant to this report FIR No.
The High Court while affirming the companyviction of Hapu Ram under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 IPC acquitted him of other charges.
The sentences shall run companycurrently.
The other two namely Surja Ram and Raju Ram were acquitted of all the charges.
PW 4 Om Prakash, companyplainant reiterated the companytents of his companyplaint.
Jail Appeal No.27 of 2003 and 74 of 2003.
Later Mohan Ram left at which stage Surja Ram and Hapu Ram caught hold of Jeevan Ram and made him sit in the front between them.
Hapu Ram was having a pistol in his hand.
1.000/ on the second companynt.
Thus, the allegation of strangulation by Surja Ram was number made in the cross examination.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 with fine of Rs.5,000/ and for sentence of 3 years under Section 201 of IPC with a fine of Rs.
The jeep was taken close to the well.
Hapu Ram with the pistol in his hand had stated that if anybody raised any protest he would kill them.
They were also companyvicted under Sections 341, 364 and 201 of IPC, while accused Raju Ram was companyvicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
Hapu Ram had threatened them number to say anything to anyone.
In the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State, the Petition as against Raju Ram was dismissed by this companyrt but leave was granted as against accused Surja Ram.
While dealing with the eye witness account through PW1 Chatra Ram as regards the role of Surja Ram, the High Court observed as under Witness stated that Surja Ram and Hapu Ram strangulated deceased Jiwan Ram, but in the cross examination, said witness stated that deceased Jiwan Ram was strangulated by Hapu Ram and before doing so, even Hapu Ram asked deceased Jiwan Ram to marry his younger daughter and, in that event, he would be relieved, but his proposal was number accepted by Jiwan Ram and, at that time, accused Hapu Ram strangulated deceased by a cycle tube.
They brought Jeevan Ram forcibly and made him sit in the jeep.
One of the suspects Chatra Ram having being granted pardon, charges were framed against Five accused under Sections 147, 341/149, 120B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and the trial was companyducted in the Court of Addl.
206 of 1998 was registered and matter was investigated.
Complainant PW4 Om Prakash submitted written report at Police Station, Nagaur at 1015 p.m. on 12.5.1998, that on 10.5.1998 he and his father Jeevan Ram were returning after attending a marriage around 1100pm, when the motor cycle tyre got punctured .
During the trial the prosecution produced one letter marked as Exh.
J. Pinaki Chandra Ghose J. Uday Umesh Lalit New Delhi, April 10, 2015 ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.13 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No s .
On the way Hapu Ram joined them.
The High companyrt however acquitted Surja Ram and Raju Ram of all the charges.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated 22.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Criminal Jail Appeal No.
Later, both had caught hold of him and made him sit in the front between them.
