But the presence of PW 1 at the time of occurrence companyld number be doubted for any reason.
There is numberimprobability in the evidences of PW 2 and PW 3 who deposed that they had seen the accused at the place of incident.
656 of 1997 preferred the First Information statement before the Police on 3.1.1985 itself at about 9.00 p.m. In the F.I. Statement, he stated that he alongwith deceased Mota Ram was proceeding to their field and Mota Ram was walking about 15 20 steps ahead of him.
21 was submitted by the expert.
PW 1 then came to the Ghamudwali Police Station where he filed the I. Statement.
The accused Raja Ram was arrested on 13.1.1985 and at his instance, a pistol was recovered.
The other two witnesses came immediately after the occurrence.
657 OF 1997 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Both these appeals arise from the companymon Judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan on 24.9.1996 in D.B. Criminal No.
The case against these respondents is that they caused the death of one Mota Ram son of Dana Ram at about 5.30 p.m. on 3.1.1985.
It is true that PW 1 Hem Raj and PW 3 Gangajal were related to the deceased.
One injury was on his stomach and the other injury was above posterial 8th inter companystal space.
The learned Sessions Judge after elaborately companysidering the evidences on record held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused and companyvicted Raja Ram and Pappu Raj Kumar for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Hari Padam was companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. No separate companyviction and sentence was entered against the respondents by the Sessions Court for the offences under the Arms Act.
Thereupon Raja Ram and Pappu Raj Kumar took out their pistols and fired at Mota Ram.
Evidence of PW 1 to PW 3 was thus companypletely discarded on the ground that they were related to the deceased and were interested witnesses and they would number have been present at the scene of occurrence.
Blood smeared soil was companylected and an empty khokha was recovered from the place of incident.
PW 4 companyducted post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Mota Ram.
Both the pistols along with the empty khokha were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and Exh.
The Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3, recovery of the pistols at the instance of the accused persons and the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
This was taken as a ground to doubt his evidence and to show that he was number at all present at the place of the incident.
There is numbercase that the deceased had profuse bleeding and even if there was bleeding, the blood may number have been splashed to stain the clothes of PW 1 to PW 3 especially when deceased himself was wearing clothes.
Deceased Mota Ram was wearing clothes when he sustained bullet injuries.
These three witnesses took the injured Mota Ram to the hospital in a jeep.
Pappu Raj Kumar was arrested on 14.1.1985 and another pistol was recovered from him.
The Doctor opined that the death of the deceased Mota Ram occurred due to the injuries caused by firearms on the liver and stomach.
PW 1 deposed that he left the hospital at Sri Ganganagar and came to Ghamudwali Police Station and gave the F.I. Statement at about 9.00 p.m. This, according to the High Court is highly improbable, PW 1 being a close relative would number have left the dead body in the hospital, whereas PW 1 deposed that many other relatives had companye to the hospital, thereafter, he left for the Police Station to give the F.I. Statement.
Immediately, Gangajal, brother of Mota Ram and one Hans Raj came there and all of them took the injured Mota Ram in a jeep to the hospital at Sri Ganganagar where Mota Ram was examined by a doctor who declared him dead.
The accused respondents suddenly emerged from the neighbouring field and accused Hari Padam shouted that enemy had companye and that he had to be finished.
PW 1 Hem Raj, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court was of the opinion that these three eyewitnesses were related to the deceased, and as there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased Mota Ram, had these witnesses been present at the place of occurrence, the accused would have killed them also.
The witnesses were asked whether their clothes were stained with blood while the injured Mota Ram was being taken to the hospital and one of the witnesses stated that his clothes were number stained with blood.
The Sessions Court was of the opinion that prosecution had clearly proved that the accused were responsible for causing the death of Mota Ram.
The ribs were broken, the left side diaphragm was punctured, the peretonium above the liver was lacerated and the liver was punctured.
657 of 1997 is by the State.
Criminal Appeal No.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The respondents Raja Ram, Hari Padam and Pappu Raj Kumar were charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and Sections 25 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
The I. Statement reached the Court on the next day at 1.30 p.m. This also was adversely companymented upon by the High Court.
This is a case where the PW 1 had given a companyvincing evidence as to how the incident happened and it is proved that Raja Ram and Pappu Raj Kumar used their pistols and injured Mota Ram.
353 of 1990, whereby the acquittal of three accused persons was companyfirmed.
The deceased Mota Ram had sustained four lacerated injuries and there were injuries to so many internal organs.
656 of 1997 is filed by the de facto companyplainant and the Criminal Appeal No.
On receiving the bullet injuries, Mota Ram fell on the ground.
Two shoes were recovered from the place of occurrence.
