Aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused persons had filed appeals before the High Court.
The accused persons denied the charge and pleaded false implication and, therefore, the Trial had companymenced against both the accused A 1 and A 2.
During the Trial, the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons had examined several witnesses including PW 1 and PW 2 Smt.
However, the Trial Court has believed the evidence of PW 6, who, in his evidence, has categorically stated that A 1 was assaulting the deceased with the stones and A 2 was sitting on the chest of the deceased.
49/99, dated 15.03.2000, has companyvicted Shri Ram A 1, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the IPC for short and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted Shobha Ram A 2.
The Trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of PW 6 has companyvicted and sentenced the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
On the fateful day, the appellants on account of their past enmity over the well located in their lands, formed companymon intention to cause death of Trilokchand since deceased and in furtherance of their companymon intention, they caused injuries to the deceased with stones resulting in his death.
593 of 2008 is preferred by Shri Ram A 1, being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and companyfirmed by the High Court.
Prosecution had projected PW 2 and PW 6 as eye witnesses to the incident.
The High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of A 1 passed by the Trial Court.
The FIR was registered and after the companypletion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed a charge sheet against A 1 and A 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Manoharbai wife of the deceased, PW 3 Bhawanishankar, PW 4 Kalulal, PW 6 Basantilal and other witnesses.
The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the eye witnesses and others, has companye to the companyclusion that the testimony of PW 2 does number companyroborate with the FIR and other material available on record and, therefore, it companyld be safely companycluded that PW 2 had number seen the occurrence of actual incident and therefore, the evidence at the most can only be an hearsay evidence.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.
130 of 2000, dated 03.06.2005.
The High Court, while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.
592 of 2008.
The facts in brief are The incident occurred on 16.02.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. PW 1 Mohanlal, who is the brother of the deceased Trilokchand had lodged the FIR before S.H.O., Police Station Chechat, regarding the alleged assault on the deceased by the accused persons.
