There cannot be furthermore any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily it was expected that P.W.1 would disclose the name of the assailants in the First Information Report, but the Court, in a case of this nature, must take into companysideration the entire circumstances surrounding the incidence and may number start with a presumption that he is number a truthful witness.
8 Khyaliram and P.W.9 Sarjeet Singh at the scene of occurrence was highly doubtful as their statements were recorded by the police after a few days.
Appellant and the deceased came to their fathers Dhani with some household articles.
Moosaram was then attacked by 4 5 persons.
It was pointed out that at the instance of Appellant the Investigating Officer has recovered an iron pipe, with which he is to have assaulted the deceased as also Mooli Devi P.W.6.
All the witnesses being related to the deceased, were highly interested and the companyrts below companymitted a serious error in relying upon their statements.
When they reached the field of Darogas, they heard shouting of their mother, whereupon they started running, sensing that they would be attacked.
1 and 2, two other witnesses, namely, W.8 Khyaliram and P.W.9 Sarjeet Singh were eye witnesses.
Mooli Devi is their mother.
The investigation was started by P.W.17 Surendra Kumar Bhati.
W.1, in his First Information Report, alleged that he and the deceased carried some household articles from town Neem Ka Thana and went to their fathers Dhani.
They were proceeding to their Dhani therewith.
Musaram was taken to hospital by Maaliram, Sarjeet and Khyali.
The motive for companymission of the said offence by Pitram was said to be that Moosaram allegedly used to harass his wife.
He ran and hid himself in the crops.
It appears that apart from P.Ws.
The Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan on the basis whereof later a scaled site plan was prepared.
Homicidal death of Moosaram is number in dispute.
Their target was known.
Her statement that she found her son being assaulted, fell on the top of him but still they did number stop beating, is significant.
He companylected blood stained soil and ordinary soil from the place of occurrence, prepared memo, obtained signatures of the witnesses thereupon.
Then these people ran away and Musaram died on the spot.
The statement of Sarjeet Singh, P.W.9, who claims himself to be an eye witness, was also number recorded for three days despite the fact that he was a witness to the Panchayatnama of inquest of the deceased.
While Appellant along with the said Pitram was companyvicted for companymission of an offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, other accused, who were four in number, were acquitted, inter alia, on the premise that they had number been properly identified and numberindividual overt acts was attributed to them.
1 and 6, which were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 13th October, 1996 itself, he was named, it cannot be said to be a case where omission to name Appellant would be fatal to the prosecution case.
He also prepared Panchayatnama of the deceased Moosaram.
Pitram, accused No.
The accused and his associates searched for him with torches in their hands, but because of shoutings of Moosaram they fled away.
A First Information Report was lodged at about 9.30 p.m. on 13.10.1996 in relation to an incident which took place at the Dhani of Mali Rams father, which is situated on Bhudoli Road, whereat, allegedly, the said Pitram companymitted murder of the said Moosaram at about 8 p.m. on the same day.
The mother tried to save her son.
Each one of them was variously armed.
They evidently came with an intention to companymit some crime.
The companytents of autopsy report are also number in dispute.
When she gave her statements before the police, she must have been in great pains.
He recorded the statements of witnesses Mahavir, Mali Ram, Mooli Devi and Khyali Ram on the same day.
On seeing them beating Musaram I fell on top of him then too they did number stop beating.
She was an injured witness.
She, indisputably, was brought to the hospital.
He reached the police station immediately after the occurrence.
She had been receiving treatment by P.W.12 Dr. Pramod Kumar Sharma.
All the accused came at the same time.
Intention on the part of the accused to attract the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act must be inferred keeping in view the fact situation involving in this case.
I had also been medically examined and my X ray was taken.
They did number even think of number companymitting the crime of murder of a son in front of his mother.
She fell on his body.
He also seized the blood stained clothes of Moosaram.
He was assaulted indiscriminately.
It was pointed out that P.W.8 at one place of his deposition alleged that his statement was taken by the police 5 7 days after the incidence and at another place stated that the same was 10 to 11 days thereafter.
Some of the injuries indisputably companyld be caused only by hard and blunt substance like an iron pipe.
Presence of P.Ws.
However, their statements were recorded later.
Not only they killed Pitram and assaulted his mother, they also chased PW 1.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, would submit that P.W.1 in his deposition had asserted that somebody else has recorded his statement at the police station, who might have companymitted an error in number recording the fact that Appellant herein also took part in the companymission of murder of the deceased and further more, having regard to the fact that in the statements of both P.Ws.
Therein even numberstatement had even been made that P.W.6 Mooli Devi had suffered serious injuries.
Pitram, the brother of the deceased and P.W.1, was working in the Border security Force.
They stopped there, talked to their mother and left for their Dhani at Lambawali.
1 A.1 , Mali Ram, the first informant W.1 and Moosaram are brothers.
It is, therefore, evident that she attributed the acts of assault number only on the part of Pitram but upon Rohtash also.
The witness recognized Pitram and Rohtash companyrectly in companyrt.
B. Sinha, J. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment of companyviction and sentence passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.765 of 1999.
He was proceeded against for companymission of murder along with one Pitram, his brother in law.
She in the process also suffered grievous injuries.
Moosaram shouted at his brother to save him.
As indicated hereinbefore, number the companyviction of Pitram, the brother in law of Appellant as the main assailant of the deceased, is also number in dispute.
