3.2 To prove the case, the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses including PW2 Om Prakash and PW3 Ram Dayal so called eyewitnesses.
Against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court acquitting the accused Bhanwar Lal, the State has also preferred the appeal.
3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Learned Trial Court, the companyvicted accused preferred appeal before the High Court.
Therefore, the State has preferred an appeal against his acquittal.
Against the order of acquittal of some of the accused, the State also preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The prosecution also brought on record the documentary evidence such as injury report relating to deceased Hari Ram.
By the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has acquitted Original Accused No.
Incised wound, 20cm X 7 cm, intestine companying out, anterior on abdomen, longitudinal, grievous and dangerous to life, sharp.
3.3 Upon appreciation of evidence, the Learned Trial Court companyvicted five accused Jodhraj, Bhanwar Lal, Dwarka Lal, Jagdish Prasad, Pooran Mal for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 379 IPC and acquitted rest of the accused by giving them benefit of doubt.
1 and 12.
1 and 12 for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.11.29 offences punishable under Section 302 r w Section 149 of the IPC, 165116 IST Reason the original Accused have preferred the present appeal.
In the Injury Report, the following injuries were found on the deceased Hari Ram abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm, right side of forehead, simple, blunt.
3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court companyfirming their companyviction, original Accused Nos.
P.C. of Om Prakash PW2 and Ram Dayal PW3, leaves numberdoubt that both the witnesses took benefit of delay and for the three injuries on the person of the deceased Hariram, out of which one was abrasion, the witnesses have resorted to implicate 14 accused.
Both the appeals are heard together.
P.C. were recorded after 18 days.
The case of the prosecution is that on 22.5.2005 in the night at 9.30 P.M., in the revenue estate of village Kadiayavan, 14 persons namely Jodhraj s o Mathura Lal, Hemraj s o Birdhi Lal, Bhanwar Lal s o Mathura Lal, Mathura Lal s o Baldev, Dwarka Lal s o Ram Narayan, Dev Kishan s o Ram Narayan, Prakash Om Prakash s o Birdhi Lal, Naval Naval Kishore s o Birdhi Lal, Badri Lal s o Kanwar Lal, Ram Prasad s o Narayan Ram Narayan, Prabhu Lal s o Bridhi Lal, Jagdish Prasad s o Mathura Lal, Ram Dayal s o Ram Narayan and Pooran Mal s o Ram Narayan, companystituted unlawful assembly and caused injuries to Hariram, as a result of which, on the intervening night of 22 nd May and 23rd May of 2005, Hariram died.
However, at the same time, relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3, the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellants herein Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad original Accused Nos.
Incised wound, 7 cm X 1cm, muscle deep, right side of neck, obliquely, simple, sharp.
Thus, the High Court did number accept the deposition of PW2 and PW3 so far as the accused Bhanwar Lal is companycerned.
However, at the same time, relying upon the statement of very two witnesses PW2 and PW3, the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction of the Appellants Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad.
By the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has acquitted the respondent herein Bhanwar Lal Original Accused No.
In an appeal, the High Court has further acquitted another Accused Bhanwar Lal on the ground that the statement of PW2 Om Prakash and the statement of PW3 Ram Dayal under Section 161 of the Cr.
P.C. were recorded after a period of 18 days and that the statement of Ram Dayal was exaggerated and more and more persons of the family were tried to be implicated.
1 and 12 Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad have preferred the present Appeal.
The prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses.
3.1 That all the accused came to be tried by the Learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149, 3/2 r w 149 and 379 of the IPC.
We have gone through the entire evidence on record and the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Trial Court as well as the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court.
Therefore, the High Court was of the opinion that recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.
3 Bhanwar Lal by giving him benefit of doubt, number believing the deposition of very PW2 and PW3.
The prosecution also relied upon the socalled dying declaration however, the dying declaration has number been believed.
The statements made by PW2 and PW3 were in exaggeration.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties at length.
Thus, the blemish on the part of the witnesses, calls upon us to sift grain from the chaff.
549 of 2012 by which the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellants herein original Accused Nos.
R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in DB Criminal Appeal No.
