The Sessions Judge relied on the statement of Jawanaram and companyvicted the three appellants.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1960, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.
Ramsingh companystable went to the spot after recording the report and found the dead body of Bhimsen lying in front of Rooprams shop It appears that head constable gone outside and returned at 5 M. and started investigation thereafter.
Rooprams statement was that he shut up his shop as soon as he heard some numberse outside and did number see the assailants.
Thereafter jawanaram started for the police outpost in Pili Bangan to make a report but Ramsingh companystable met him on the way at a short distance from the shop of Roopram.
The case of the appellants was that they had number companymitted this offence and that they had been implicated on account of enmity They examined numberevidence in defence.
Because of certain answers that he gave in cross examination this witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution.
He did number rely on the statement of Ram Partap as he was of the view that Ram Partap did number arrive in the Mandi till about 6 P.m.
Sometime thereafter the police came to the spot and started investigation.
Thereupon Jawanaram made a report Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
It arises out of an incident in which Bhimsen was murdered on May 8, 1959 at Mandi Pili Bangan shortly before 3 P.m.
Jawanaram but he dropped on the ground and pellets hit Lekhram weighman who was standing behind Jawanaram.
Thereafter all the assailants ran away.
He saw Jawanaram and Lekhram were also there injured and Jawanaram went away shortly after for making the report.
Thereafter the three appellants and two others who have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge were prosecuted for this murder.
After the report had been recorded, Jawanaram was sent to the hospital where his injuries were examined at 3 30 P.m.
P 1 to Ramsingh then and there.
The Sessions Judge also made a reference for the companyfirmation of the sentence of death passed on Pamratan.
which resulted in a companypound fracture.
and thought that it might have been recorded any time up to 6 P.m.
But even so he placed full reliance on the evidence of Jawanaram only and companyvicted the three appellants, sentencing Ramratan to death and the other two to imprisonment for life.
September.
As to Roopram he held that his statement that Jawanaram had told him the names of the assailants immediately after the incident was over when he came out of his shop companyld number be used as companyroborate on of the statement of Jawanaram under s. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, as Jawanaram had number said in his statement in Court that he had told Roopram the names of the five assailants He was also doubtful whether the report Ex.
Four or five persons armed with guns came there and shouted and fired two or three times with the result that Bhimsen, Jawanaram and he were injured and Bhimsen died immediately.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Bhimsen returned to the village to bring more grain and came back at about10/11 A.M. on the 8th on his tractor trolly along with his brother Ram Partap.
The gram was to be sold through Roopram and was stacked in front of his shop in the mandi.
P 1 was recorded at 3 P.m.
Another cause for.
But he was unable to say whether the five persons in the dock were the assailants.
Maniram also fired at.
Lekhram stated that he was there weighing the gram.
K. Kapur and T. M. Sen, for the respondent 1961.
248 of 1960.
Jawanaram related the whole story as given above, Ram Partap said that he had companye near the spot on seeing the assailants going that way and hid himself at some distance and saw the incident from there.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
While this report was being recorded, Ram Partap also turned up.
It also accepted the evidence of Jawanaram in the main.
When he came out, however, he was told by Jawanaram the names of the five assailants and saw Bhimsen lying dead.
The prosecution story briefly was, that there was bad blood between Ramratan appellant and the members of the family of Bhimsen on account of panchayat elections in which they had supported rival candidates.
He had also heard three reports of gunshots from inside his shop.
Shortly before 3 p.m. while the gram was being weighed by Lekhram weighman, the three appellants and two others namely, Moman and Ramsingh came up there armed with ,guns.
Ramratan shouted that the enemy should number be allowed to escape as Bhimsen was trying to enter the shop of Roopram to save himself on seeing these persons.
Roopram had shut up his shop when the incident took place and he only came out When everything was over.
Bhimsen and his father brought some gram for sale on the night between May 7/8, 1959, to Pili Bangan.
L. Anand, C. L. Sareen and B. L. Kohli, for the appellants.
enmity was that some time before the occurrences Ramratan appellant was prosecuted under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhimsen was cited as a prosecution witness in that case and Ramratan did number like that.
This was followed by an appeal to the High Court by the companyvicted persons.
Further the High Court did number companysider the evidence of Lekhram of much value as if, did number companynect the appellants with the crime.
Ram Partap was apparently number interested in the sale and had wandered away leaving his father Jawanaram and his brother Bhimsen at the shop.
The Sub inspector arrived on the scene at about 6 p.m. and took over the investigation and.
The main prosecution evidence companysisted of the statements of Jawanaram, his son Ram Partap, Roopram and Lekhram as to what happened at the spot.
290 of 1960 and D. B, Criminal Murder Reference No 7 of 1960.
Jawanaram asked him to send telegram to police station Suratgarh and told him the names of the five assailants.
He also did number rely on the statement of Lekhram, which in any case was useless in so far as the companynection of the appellants with the crime was companycerned.
He however, gave the benefit of doubt to the other two assailants and acquitted them.
