P.C. Three witnesses were examined in defence.
The driver of which was Mangi Lal and the respondent was sitting on the rear side, who fired on them, which companylided with the right thigh of the Sarpanch.
Accused respondent Ram Kailash fired with pistol, to whom, he and Mangla Ram Sarpanch identified.
Respondent was charged under Sections 302, 120 B, IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act.
Hence, State of Rajasthan has preferred present appeal by special leave being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court.
Someone else was driving the motorcycle.
Prosecution examined 33 witnesses.
Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.
Accused Durga Ram was charged under Sections 120 B and 302 in alternative 302/34 IPC and accused Ghewar Ram was charged under Section 120 B IPC, to which they pleaded number guilty.
However, the companyviction and sentences under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act are maintained.
Mangla Ram, who was sitting on the back side of the motorcycle, cried that someone from the suzuki motorcycle has fired upon him.
Though these three witnesses of recovery are police companystables, but in view of the fact that recovery was made from the forest, it was number possible for the police officer to bring independent witnesses.
Facts in brief of the present case are that one Ram Chandra filed a report Ex.
This evidence clearly indicates that gunshot injury was inflicted by accused respondent.
Later on Durga Ram was arrested and he was charged under Sections 302/34 and 120 B, IPC.
He felt unconscious till he reached Kuchera.
Upon this report, In charge of Police Station Kuchera registered a case under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and companymenced investigation.
Accused Ghewar Ram was challaned under Section 302/34 and 120 B IPC and third person namely Durga Ram was declared as absconding.
Sarpach Mangla Ram was taken to Kuchera hospital, and thereafter, to Nagaur and from there, he was referred to Jodhpur hospital.
Thereafter, police filed charge sheet against accused respondent under Sections 302, 120 B IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act.
According to him, these injuries were caused by fire arm.
This gun shot injury was of course of such a nature as opined by the doctor was likely to cause death and was fired with an intention, but the offender was number knowing that as to whom he is causing harm out of the two on the motorcycle.
Furthermore, there is a dying declaration of deceased Mangla Ram recorded on the very day of the incident, in which, he has stated that accused respondent came on the motorcycle from his back side and fired on him.
Injured Mangla Ram was operated at Jodhpur Hospital, where he died on 22.6.2001.
From the documents on record and the impugned order, it is clear that the main injury on the person of deceased Mangla Ram as per the Medical Jurist M.S. Kothari was Kothari a cut wound of 5.5 cm x 5 cm x plural cavity deep on the lower part of the right chest and on the upper part of the leg and in companysequence of this, there were multiple wounds on account of abrasions and bruises on the right arm.
The fine of Rs.50,000/ imposed under Section 304 Part I IPC shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Mangla Ram.
Thereafter, he went to the hospital and lodged the report.
He has stated in his examination in chief that when he was going with Mangla Ram Sarpanch on the motorcycle, then, he saw Ghewar Ram, accused respondent Ram Kailash, Durga Ram and Mangi Lal two kilometers before Kuchera near Suzuki motorcycle and another Rajdoot motorcycle, and on seeing them on motorcycle, they all four entered in the dhani of Sangramji.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial companyrt, accused respondent preferred appeal before the High Court, which observed as under In the present case, two persons were riding on the motorcycle namely Mangla Ram on the back side and Ram Chandra was driving the motorcycle, and they were followed by two persons on the motorcycle including accused appellant Ram Kailash Ram Vilas, who fired on them, which companylided on the lower side of the right chest of Mangla Ram, and after six days of the incident, he died.
About ten kilometers away from Kuchera, Suzuki motorcycle came.
As per the S.L. Report, blood that was found on the pellets was of human origin.
Further upon the information of accused respondent furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance to this, desi pistol and empty bag of 12 bore kartoos were recovered, which has been proved by Budha Ram PW 29, Ghewar Ram PW 30 and Banwari Lal PW 21.
Thereupon, he saw that accused Ram Kailash and driver Mangi Lal were on the suzuki motorcycle.
Y. EQBAL, J. This appeal by the appellant State is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in B. Criminal Appeal No.
630 of 2004, whereby Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the accused respondent and altered his companyviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC to Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced him to a period of eight years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/ .
P 13 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur on 16.6.2001 stating inter alia that on the same day, when he and Mangla Ram were going from Bodwa to Dadariya Khurd for attending maira, one suzuki motorcycle came from the back side at a distance of ten kilometers away from Kuchera.
The main eye witness according to the FIR is Ram Chandra, who has been examined as PW 10.
However, the fine imposed under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act for a sum of Rs.2,000/ and Rs.3,000/ respectively shall be deposited in the State fund.
