Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, all the three accused preferred an appeal before the High Court, raising various issues in relation to the appreciation of evidence, false implications, companytradiction in statements of witnesses and that numberevidence had been led against them.
Satyanarain PW7 , who is the most material witness of the prosecution, had made the report Ex.
He companyld identify Afzal, Kadir, Islam, Bada Bhaiya, two brother of Noor Tractorwala, Zabbar Tractorwala, Mannan, Hanif and Mehboob.
The remaining persons also inflicted injuries on the head of Govind Narian.
After a while a crowd came from the side of Hathai and started pelting stones at his house.
On examination of testimony of these three witnesses Mahesh PW4 , Kanhaiya Lal PW5 and Satya Narayan PW 7 from the point of view of trustworthiness we find it untruthful.
This witness stated the he knew Zabbar even prior to the occurrence.
It bears my signature at A to B and I have entered the cause of death at C to D. Mahesh PW 4 in his statement in Court had stated that he saw a mob of persons belonging to the Muslim companymunity approaching when he was standing outside his house.
He however, companyld number identify Afzal and Mannan.
Later on, when the police came and the persons from the mob fled away, he went to the house of Govind Narain, the door was broken and he numbericed that both Govind Narain and Hari Narain were lying in a pool of blood and were unconscious.
In my opinion the death of Hari Narayan was cause sic due to Neutrogena sic shock that is injury of the brain caused by injury Nos.1 and 2.
And the brain Metter sic was companying out this injury was on the center of the head from where the blood was oozing.
Satyanarain had sustained injuries.
On these premises, they prayed for setting aside of the judgment of the trial companyrt and claimed acquittal.
At the hospital, doctor after examining them declared both of them dead.
He identified the persons who jumped inside the house, as Mahboob, Haneef and Abdul Zabbar.
The strain on the witness due to the incident cannot be ruled out inasmuch as he had lost his father, uncle and was himself injured.
It appears from the record that during recording of statement of this witness, the public prosecutor sought permission to declare the witness hostile.
Thereafter he took all of them to the hospital where two deceased persons were declared brought dead.
A through and scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances of the case leads to an irresistible and inexplicable companyclusion that the prosecution has number established the charge leveled against all the three accused by producing companyent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.
Accused Afzal also took the plea of false implication, and stated that there were two or three persons by the name of Afzal Lakhara and he had number been present at the place of occurrence.
The prosecution had examined seven witnesses including three eye witnesses namely, PW7 and companyplainant Satyanarain, PW4 Mahesh and PW5 Kanhiyalal as well as PW2 medical examiner Dr. Chandra Prakash, and the investigating officer, PW3 Shri Rajendra Ojha.
Even in the Court, he rightly identified one person Abdul Zabbar.
This witness referred to the place of occurrence, preparation of site plan and medical report by the doctor, he admitted his signature on all these documents including Exh.
Both the edges of the wound were sharp.
P.C. The plea taken by the accused was that these witnesses are deposing falsely, and have implicated them in companymission of the crime at the instance of the police.
Vide its judgment dated 12th August, 1997, the trial companyrt acquitted both the accused persons.
These persons, who had witnessed the occurrence, along with the companyplainant, brought Govind Narain and Hari Narain to hospital at Malpura.
Corroborating the statement of PW4, Kanhaiya Lal PW5 stated that after seeing the mob, he shut the door of his house called the Malpura police station and climbed to the roof.
Two other accused, namely, Firoze and Anwar were discharged by the companyrt vide judgment dated 21st March, 1998.
The appellants Abdul Zabbar and Afzal, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if number required to be detained in any other case.
In my opinion the death of Govind was caused due to Neutrogena sic shock which was caused by injury number1 and due to hemorrhage which was caused by injury number2.
3 The blood was companying out from the right ear.
Abdul Mannan took the plea of false implication, and claimed that he was in a school at a distance of 18 km away from the Malpura.
He had seen the accused persons at the place of incidence.
He came out of his room and tried to save them, and in the process, he also suffered injuries.
In the cross examination he however stated that he did number narrat the names of these persons to police.
Govind Narain fell down, even then these persons did number stop inflicting injuries on his arms and shoulders with lathies.
He did number go to jail or other place for the purpose of identification of accused Kanhaiya Lal PW5 deposed that mob of 60 70 persons belonging to Muslim companymunity entered the house of Govind Narayan.
Testimony of Mahesh PW 4 , Kanhaiya Lal PW5 and Satya Narayan PW7 is ambulatory and vacillating and it is number safe to reply upon.
All the aforesaid injuries were of before death.
In the meantime, the police siren blew and upon hearing the same, these persons ran away.
The learned trial companyrt discussed the prosecution evidence as well as the defence at great length.
He went onto the roof of Premchand Mehrus house, from where he companyld see that some persons were pushing the door of Gopal Narains house.
In his cross examination, he gave a few vague answers like he does number remember whether he had discussed the identity of the accused persons with Satyanarain, whether 4, 5 or 50 police officers were present at the funeral etc.
All the 3 injuries were caused before the death and in general nature were sufficient to cause the death of Govind.
Hari Narain, kakaji of Satyanarain, was also standing there and these persons also inflicted injuries with sword and pharsi on his head.
State of Rajasthan aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, preferred the present appeal before this Court.
c Under Section 324/149 IPC, all the accused were awarded one years rigorous imprisonment each and d Lastly, under Section 449 IPC, they were awarded three years of rigorous imprisonment each along with fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
We acquit the appellants Abdul Zabbar, Afzal and Abdul Mannan of the charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 449 IPC.
All the three accused were identified by the witness in Court.
Afzal Mota Lakhara, Mahboob, Hanif tractorwala, Jabbar Ahmad Tractorwala came inside and some other persons who he companyld number identify started assaulting Govind Narain and Hari Narain with lathi and pharsi which he witnessed from his room.
He was subjected to lengthy cross examination.
He did admit that he companyld number identify all the persons, who had companye there.
According to him, he was busy in maintaining law and order situation when he received the information that assailants had entered the house of one Govind Narain Waheti and had beaten those inside and that the latter had been taken to the hospital.
According to PW7, the injuries were caused on the head.
Satya Narayan PW 7 in his deposition stated that a mob of 60 persons attacked the house.
For these reasons we allow the instant appeals and set aside the judgment dated September 7, 1999 of the learned Special Judge Shri G.C. Sharma, Communal Riots and Man Singh Murder Case, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1/1997.
Thus, the subject matter of the judgment of the trial companyrt dated 7th September, 1999 relates only to the three accused namely Abdul Zabbar, Afzal and Abdul Mannan.
On the dead body aforesaid external injuries were found.
He had also taken Kanhaiya Lal, who was injured, to the hospital.
Some members of the mob started pushing the door and eventually broke the door and PW7 ran away for safety.
Besides Kanhaiya Lal Baheti, Babulal Aggarwal and Mahesh Mukar Kacholiya had also witnessed the occurrence.
1 and 2 on the head of Hari Narayan were in general nature sufficient to cause the death.
The prosecution companyld only able to establish that an unruly mob of Muslims attacked the house of deceased but companyld number prove beyond reasonable doubt that the three appellants were the members of unruly mob and they inflicted injuries.
Satyanarain ran to stop them but those persons started beating him.
Variations, infirmities, additions, and embellishments in the evidence of these witnesses are of such nature that companyld undermine the substratum of the prosecution case.
They gave two or three blows with swords on the head of Govind Narain father of Satyanarain.
The injury Nos.
In his cross examination also numberhing material was brought out by the defence.
He companyld see persons climbing the roof of Govind Narains house and he companyld recognize Afzal Kadir Islam, Bada Bahaiya, two brothers of tractorwala namely Jabbar tractorwala and Mannan, Hanif and Mahboob.
And obtuse injury all around right eyes sic .
Satyanarain Baheti made a report to the S.H.O., Police Station, Malpura in front of the hospital at Malpura on 9th December, 1992 to the effect that, at about 11.15 a.m. that morning the companyplainant had been standing outside his house in Bahetiyon ke Mohalle in Ward No.6 of Kasba Malpura.
Thereafter, 8 10 persons including Afzal son of Mota, Mahboob son of Jumma, two brothers of tractorwala, Syyed Jabbar Ahmad tractorwala, Abdul Manjan son of Jabbar, Hanif son of Iqbal and Qadir Islam came inside by climbing the back wall.
On companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
The witness companyrectly identified Zabbar and Afzal in Court and stated that these persons had caused injuries to the deceased.
The case was companymitted only with regard to two accused namely Hanif and Mehboob.
The incriminating evidence against the accused was put to the accused while recording their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 15th March, 2005, acquitted all the accused and passed the following order That takes us to the evidence of the eye witnesses examined at the trial.
The death of Hari Narayan was caused within 2 to 3 hours of sic the postmortem.
The death of Govind was caused within 2 to 3 hours from sic companyducting the post mortem I have prepared the post mortem report which is exhibit and is verified.
In his cross examination Mahesh stated that he did number narrate the incident to anybody for 5 7 days.
This witness also stated that he knew these persons even before the incident.
These persons were duly armed with knife, pharsi, sword and lathies.
He went inside his house and closed the door but in a short while stones were thrown at the house.
This witness, according to the trial companyrt, rightly identified the persons named by him.
Resultantly, FIR was registered on 9th December, 1992 at about 12.45 p.m. The case was investigated.
Hearing the numberse of the stampede and uproar, he entered his house and closed the door.
2 Lacerated wound in size of 3 inch x inch deep up to the bones on the center with depressed fracture.
According to him these persons went inside the house of Govind Narain and created nuisance.
Similar stand was taken by Zabbar.
The appellants Abdul is on bail, he need number surrender and his bail bonds stand discharged.
PW 6 Radhey Shyam is the Investigating Officer and was the SHO of police Station, Malpura.
Two or three persons came inside the house after breaking the bolt of the door.
Some of them held swords in their hands, some of them lathies and some held pharsi and once they reached the house of Govind Narain, they forcibly opened the door.
The case in relation to other accused was then companymitted to the trial companyrt.
Swatanter Kumar J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur dated 15th March, 2005 in a case of companymunal violence.
Against an order of acquittal, an appeal by the State is maintainable to this Court only with the leave of the Court.
