Out of these witnesses, PW 4, PW7 and PW 9 have been declared hostile as they did number support the prosecution case in material particulars.
Hira Ram PW 13 , a police companystable stated that in his presence, room of accused Bhanwar Singh was searched and he found that wooden bed and almirah were in a broken companydition.
Defence of the accused, in short, was that numberoccurrence as alleged had taken place.
During trial, both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and the trial companyrt upon companyclusion of trial while acquitting accused Vishnu, companyvicted the respondents as stated above and the same having been reversed by the High Court, two appeals by special leave have been preferred before this Court, one by the State of Rajasthan and another by the companyplainant.
The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Md. Sabir PW 4 , Achal Dass PW 7 , Mst.
The dispute between the parties over user of the roofs of the shops by PW 1 has been, however, admitted.
PW 18 though claimed to be an eye witness and has supported the prosecution case but her name was number mentioned in the first information report and she was examined by the police after 22 days of the occurrence and numberexplanation whatsoever has been furnished by the prosecution for such an inordinate delay in her examination by the police.
After the induction of PW 1 as tenant in the said shop, accused Bhanwar Singh purchased the said shop along with another shop which was adjacent to it and after purchase, PW 1 became tenant of Bhanwar Singh.
The police after registering the case took up investigation, during the companyrse of which, witnesses stated that after the occurrence, PW 1 was chased by accused Bhanwar Singh and while so chasing, the villagers who had already assembled there, apprehended and assaulted him by his gun after snatching the same from him as a result of which butt of the gun was broken.
Dharma Ram respondent No.
At that time, Arjun Singh, uncle of PW 1 came there and took out gun belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh which was kept in the room and tried to break that gun on the cemented floor in front of the room in order to save members of the prosecution party, as a result of which, one live cartridge which was embedded in the gun went off and hit Arjun Singh.
Upon companypletion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and on companypletion thereof, the learned Magistrate took companynizance and companymitted the aforesaid three accused persons to the companyrt of session to face trial.
In another shop, Bhanwar Singh was carrying on business in the name and style of Chamunda Traders.
At that time, accused Dharma Ram and Vishnu were also present there.
Thereupon when PW 1 again wanted to go to the roof, Bhanwar Singh asked him number to go failing which he would be shot.
Apart from the sentence awarded against them, respondent Nos.1 2 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.
The prosecution version that after the occurrence, while Bhanwar Singh was chasing PW1, he was apprehended by the villagers who snatched gun from him and assaulted him with the same and while doing so, butt of the gun was broken, was number disclosed in the first information report although, PW1 admitted that when he came back from the police companytrol room, he came to know from villagers that Bhanwar Singh was assaulted by them and the first information report was lodged thereafter with the police at the place of occurrence itself.
It is number known what was narrated by Arjun Singh about the present occurrence to his wife and children.
75,000/ and Rs.
On Ist June, 1989 between 6.30 and 7.30 in the evening, when PW 1 was going on the roof top of the said shops, he was stopped by Bhanwar Singh and abused.
219 OF 1995 Rajesh Solanki Anr.
Bhanwar Singh thereafter went to his room, brought his gun and told Arjun Singh that he would give full right of use of the roofs to PW 1 and by uttering these words, he fired at Arjun Singh which hit him on the right thigh as a result of which Arjun Singh fell down.
Prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report, in short, was that in the heart of town of Jodhpur, there was a building known as Sainla House wherein Rajesh Solanki PW 1 had taken a shop on rent and was running a cycle shop therein.
1 was ordered to be forfeited to the State.
On the date and time of occurrence, PW 1 came along with PW 4 and PW 7 in the room belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh, beat him and had broken the wooden bed, table, telephone and glasses of almirah which were kept there.
Against the order of acquittal of accused Vishnu, numberappeal was preferred but on appeal being preferred by the respondents, their companyvictions have been set aside by the High Court and they have been acquitted of all the charges.
Then accused Dharma Ram and Vishnu shouted that PW1 should be shot.
The gun belonging to accused Bhanwar Singh respondent No.
Thereupon, PW 1 went to his uncle Arjun Singh who was running a provisional store in the same very building, called him and when he came, he told Bhanwar Singh that the roofs of the shops were always in the use of PW 1.
Roofs of both the aforesaid shops were in use of PW 1 for which there was a dispute between him and accused Bhanwar Singh leading to filing of several cases.
After the occurrence, PW 1 went to the police outpost where he narrated the occurrence before a companystable who telephonically informed the police companytrol room about the same and asked PW 1 to go to the companytrol room whereupon PW 1 went to the police companytrol room where he came to know that the police had already left for the place of occurrence.
Station House officer Ashok Kumar Trivedi PW 15 stated that when he inspected the room of accused Bhanwar Singh, he found tables, wooden bed and telephone in broken companydition and glass pieces of almirah were found scattered on the floor of the room.
Thereupon, PW 1 came back to the place of occurrence and reported the matter to the police on the basis of which a case was registered at the police station under Section 307 of the Penal Code and the injured was shifted to hospital where later on he succumbed to the injuries, as such case was companyverted into one under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
PW 1 wanted to make some companystruction over the roof which was objected to by accused Bhanwar Singh.
If prosecution case of snatching of gun by the villagers from the accused is true, it is number understandable how the accused was able to produce the same before the police.
Appellant Versus Bhanwar Singh Ors.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
578 OF 2004 SLP Crl.
Respondents Bhanwar Singh and Dharma Ram along with accused Vishnu were tried and by judgment rendered by trial companyrt, accused Vishnu was acquitted of the charges whereas Bhanwar Singh respondent No.
Chandrakanta PW 18 apart from the companyplainant Rajesh Solanki PW 1 .
2 was companyvicted under Section 302/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
25,000/ respectively by way of companypensation to wife and children of deceased Arjun Singh.
Leave granted.
Ummed Kumari PW 9 and Mst.
Respondent s N.AGRAWAL, J. Application for permission to file SLP is allowed.
