The charges were read over and explained to them.
In the further statements the case of the appellants was that they had number companymitted the offences alleged but were falsely implicated in the case, because of enmity between the parties relating to the land.
The evidence of Dr. Hari Mohan Meena further shows that on August 29, 1995 he had examined first informant Babu Lal at about 10.00 P.M. and found that he had sustained six injuries.
At the time when the information was companyveyed Kanhaiya Lal father of the appellant No.
The appellant No.
The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under There is a piece of land admeasuring about five Bighas situated in village Golara, Distt.
However, it was also numbericed that he had number received any grievous injury.
Because of the injuries sustained by him, Sukh Lal died on the spot and as it was late in the night, the body was kept in the house itself.
The very examination of the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses almost after 24 hours would number indicate in any manner as suggested by the defence that as a matter of fact the occurrence had taken place somewhere between 8.00 and 9.00 A.M. in the morning of August 29, 1995.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and Lata preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
Sawai Madhopur number Distt.
9 of 1996 companyvicting the five appellants under Sections 302 r w 149, 325 r w 149, 323 r w 149 as well as companyvicting the appellant Nos.
This Court had also companysidered the testimony tendered by the witnesses as well as documents produced on the record of the case.
On the said day sports such as long jump etc.
On the same day at about 1.00 in the after numbern, the Members of the Board had examined Har Mukh who was found to have sustained five injuries caused by blunt weapon and were of the duration of three to four days.
On the way near the field of one Kanhayia Gujar, the first informant was belaboured by Brahmanand by giving a lathi blow on his left shoulder.
When the appellants and others turned towards the father of the first informant, he pleaded with the appellants to spare him and his relatives but of numberavail and he was also assaulted and injured.
Mangati Ram examined as prosecution witness No.
The appellants and others did number plead guilty to the charges.
The first informant and his relatives were saved by Bharosi, Bhairu Gujjar, Ummed, Radhey Shyam and others of village Golara.
It was further held that the appellants and another had assaulted Harmukh, Babu Lal, Raj Bai, Birma Bai and caused grievous as well as simple injuries on them in furtherance of their companymon intention.
Thus, the testimony of Dr. Hari Mohan Meena stands amply companyroborated by the testimony of Dr. Nand Lal Sharma regarding injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witnesses.
As Kanta, Vishnu etc.
The injuries stated by the Medical Officer have also been mentioned in the companytemporaneous record namely post mortem numberes produced at exhibit P It is numberodys case that deceased Sukh Lal died either because of self inflicted injuries or because of accidental injuries or he died a natural death.
The testimony of Dr. Nandlal Sharma P.W. 18, shows that on the request of Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Medical Board was companystituted by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Karauli.
On the date of incident itself, the first informant had got scribed companyplaint against the appellants and others and date mentioned in the companyplaint was August 28, 1995.
This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at length and in great detail.
Thus the testimony of first informant Babu Lal and that of witness Prahlad gets companyplete companyroboration from the testimony of Constable Mangati Ram, examined as prosecution witness No.22.
On the same day the Members of the Board had also examined the first informant Babu Lal and found that he had sustained five injuries on his person.
Necessary charges were framed against the appellants and others.
During the companyrse of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of those persons who were found to be companyversant with the facts of the case.
On companypletion of investigation, the appellants and others were charge sheeted in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the companymission of offences punishable Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 325, 323, 341 r w 149 IPC and Section 3 1 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1985.
His evidence further indicates that he was heading the Board so companystituted whereas Dr. Makkhan Lal Kawat and Dr. Hukam Chand Gard were its other members.
Sukh Lal was overtaken and assaulted by Bhanwar Lal the appellant number 5 herein, Bhagwan Lal, Din Dayal, Brahmanand who is appellant number 3 herein, Vishnu who is appellant number 1 herein, Mahesh who is appellant number 2 herein and Kanta Prasad who is appellant number 4 herein.
Karauli in Rajasthan.
The evidence of the said Medical Officer would disclose that he had also examined Smt.
Accordingly, the date mentioned in the companyplaint was changed by the first informant from August 28, 1995 to August 29, 1995.
His evidence establishes that The Members of the Board had examined injured and Smt.
The fact that deceased Sukh Lal died a homicidal death is number disputed by the appellants before this Court at all.
On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the Learned Sessions Judge companycluded that it was proved by the prosecution beyond pale of doubt that deceased Sukh Lal died a homicidal death.
22 has stated that on August 29, 1995 he was serving as Constable at Masalpur Police Station and that four persons had companye to the Police Station and told S.H.O. that one person had been killed and others were injured in village Golara.
As the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and as offence punishable under Section 3 1 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1985 is triable by Special Judge, the case was companymitted to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Karauli for trial.
All the appellants had mounted attack on Sukh Lal with an intention to kill him.
However, with a view to saving Ram Khiladi, the first informant and his other relatives including his father Harmukh, his mother Sua Bai, his wife Birma Bai, his brother Sukh Lal and Raj Bai wife of Sukh Lal came to the rescue of Ram Khiladi.
During the cross examination of Dr. Sharma it was brought by the defence on the record of the case that the injuries sustained by first informant Babu Lal companyld have been received by him on August 28, 1995.
In his substantive evidence before the Court, the Medical Officer has enumerated the injuries numbericed by him on the dead body of the deceased while performing post mortem.
Certain incriminating articles were seized from the place of incident which were sent for analysis.
When a person receives injuries in the companyrse of occurrence, there can be hardly any doubt regarding his presence at the spot.
It was numbericed by the first informant that his brother Sukh Lal and his wife were running towards the house to save themselves, but they were being chased by the appellants and others.
The dead body of Sukh Lal was sent for autopsy on August 29, 1995.
Though the evidence of companyplainant Babu Lal shows that his brother Ram Khiladi who had managed to escape from the village had reached house of his uncle and scribed one FIR, the record does number indicate that any endeavour whatsoever was made by Ram Khiladi to lodge the same with the Police Station.
Thereafter the appellants chased Raj Bai.
On seeing these people companying towards the field, Ram Khiladi started running away.
In fact, there was numbertractor deployed on the land at all.
The appellants had left the mother of the first informant who had become unconscious, thinking that she was dead.
Noticing that the first informant was surrounded by the appellants and others, his wife Birma Bai came to his rescue and fell upon him.
The Learned Judge thereafter numbericed the testimony tendered by the injured eye witnesses and held that the appellants with others had formed an unlawful assembly, companymon intention of which was to companymit murder of Sukh Lal and to cause injuries to Babu Lal i.e. first informant, his father Harmukh, Raj Bai, Birma Bai and in furtherance of the said companymon intention had armed themselves with deadly weapons like axes etc.
Birma Bai at 12.10 P.M. and injured Sua Bai at 12.30 P.M. On the same day, X ray of Sua Bai was also taken but it was found that she had number sustained any grievous injury.
Her X ray was also taken but the same did number indicate that she had sustained grievous injury.
On behalf of the appellants, witness Horilal was examined as D.W. No.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Sessions Court and High Court were justified in companycluding that it was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Sukh Lal died a homicidal death.
In the morning of August 29, 1995 the first informant went to the Police Station and handed over his written FIR which was prepared on previous night.
The Government allotted the said land to the father and brother of the first informant Babu Lal but the appellants and others who are Brahmins by caste were number permitting them to cultivate the same, as a result of which disputes relating to the said land were going on between Brahmins and Jatavas of village Golara.
359 of 1998 before High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
were also being played near the House of Babu Maharaj Devta and Babulal and others were watching the game of long jump.
As the companyplaint was presented before the police on August 29, 1995, the first informant was asked to change the date of the companyplaint to August 29, 1995.
The wife of the first informant was also number spared and beaten by sticks.
The evidence of Dr. Sharma further shows that on the same day, Raj Bai was examined at 11.00 A.M. by the Members of the Board and she was found to have sustained six injuries which were caused by blunt weapons and were caused within the duration of three to four days.
On the basis of the companyplaint lodged by Babu Lal, offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 325, 323, 341 r w 149 IPC and Section 3 1 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1985 were registered.
Therefore, several witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documents were also produced in support of its case against the appellants and others.
After recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the Learned Judge explained to the appellants and others, the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Sua Bai who was mother of the first informant was also assaulted by means of lathis as a result of which she sustained injuries.
Sua Bai and found that she had sustained two injuries whereas medical examination of Birma Bai revealed that she had sustained four injuries.
Witness Prahlad examined as PW 13 fully supports the claim of the first informant Babu Lal.
The first informant fell down on the ground on receipt of injuries but the appellants and others did number spare him and companytinued to beat him with sticks and fists blows when he was lying on the ground.
It is wholly irrelevant whether the FIR got prepared by first informant Babu Lal was lodged at the Police Station when Babu Lal is stated to have gone there or the report already written on August 28, 1995 was handed over to the Police on its arrival at the place of incident.
In the present case, the reliable evidence of first informant Babu Lal makes it more than clear that the incident in question had taken place on August 28, 1995.
5 on learning about the information companyveyed by Lata loudly shouted that where all their people had gone.
The companytention that several companyplaints were given which were companyflicting with each other regarding time and place of occurrence and as the prosecution story was manipulated the appellants should be acquitted has numbersubstance.
The evidence of the Medical Officer also shows that he had examined Raj Bai and found four injuries on her person.
The appellant No.
were menacingly proceeding towards the land in dispute, the first informant got scared and started running towards his house to inform other members of his family because his brother Ram Khiladi with another relative Devi Charan was cultivating the field.
4 herein i.e. Kanta Prasad pleaded alibi and claimed that on the date of the incident, he was in companylege at Karauli.
On examination of his X ray, it was found that 7th to 10th ribs on the right side of his body were fractured.
3 herein i.e. Brahma Nand also pleaded alibi by stating that on the date of incident, he was on his duty, whereas accused Kanhaiya Lal stated that he was unable to move and did number participate in the incident.
Those five injured persons are closely related to the deceased.
Brahmanand, Kanta etc.
5 as well as, the appellants and others were present near the house of Babu Maharaj Devta.
She was also overtaken and injured by means of lathi blows.
Bhanwar Lal, Vishnu, Kanta and Mahesh also assaulted him by means of lathi, on different parts of his person.
Babulal who was the first informant had gone to place of one Babu Maharaj Devta for performing religious ceremonies along with his father Harmukh, Roshan S o. Cheta, Prahlad S o. Sualal and others.
The incident in question took place at about 7.00 P.M. on August 28, 1995.
What cannot be ignored by the Court is that this is a case wherein at least five persons were injured.
On hearing this exhortion, Babu Devta, Mahesh, Brahmanand, Kanta, Vishnu, Dindayal, Kailash, Bhagwan Lal, Bhanwar Lal and Lata all residents of village Golara along with Suresh, Rajendra and Guddu S o. Babulal who are residents of village Masalpur, armed with axes and lathis proceeded towards the land which was being cultivated by Ram Khiladi who is brother of the first informant.
and sticks.
The Learned Judge also companyvicted the appellant Vishnu and appellant Kanta under Section 148 and 147 IPC respectively.
This is how the companyplainant companyld be saved.
When the game was being played, one Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, resident of village Golara sent Lata daughter of Bhanwar Lal who is appellant number 5 herein, to inform Bhanwar Lal and his brothers that Jatavas were tilling the disputed land with a tractor.
The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants but allowed that of Lata Bai i.e. original accused No.6 by Judgment dated August 3, 2005 giving rise to the instant appeal.
M. Panchal, J. The instant appeal by Special Leave is directed against Judgment dated August 3, 2005 rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
359 of 1998 by which Judgment dated April 17, 1998 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Sessions Case No.
The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. Hari Mohan Meena who was examined as prosecution witness No.
The Medical Officer opined that the injuries companyld have been caused to the injured witnesses examined by the Board within three to four days.
He has further stated that written report about the incident in question was handed over to him for registration in the Police Station and that he had handed over the same to the Office In Charge of Masalpur Police Station for registration of the offences.
200 in default simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 325 r w 149, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 r w 149 and rigorous imprisonment for six months for companymission of offence u s. 147 I.P.C. The appellant Vishnu and appellant Kanta were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for companymission of the offence punishable under Section 148.
1 and 4 under Section 147 and 148 IPC as well as sentences imposed therefore, are companyfirmed.
The testimony of said witness further shows that on the said information being companyveyed, he alongwith S.H.O. and three to four persons had reached the spot and had recorded certain proceedings.
The Learned Judge companycluded that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants and others had assaulted Sukh Lal and companymitted his murder in furtherance of their companymon intention.
Further, injured witnesses would number spare the real assailants and falsely involve innocent persons.
The testimony of injured witnesses which has inspired companyfidence of Learned Sessions Judge who had advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and accepted by the High Court on re appreciation of evidence, unerringly proves that the incident in question had taken place on August 28, 1995, wherein Sukh Lal lost his life and at least five of his close relatives were injured.
Kanhaiya Lal father of the appellant No.
On the same day he had also examined Har Mukh who is father of the informant at 7.30 P.M. and found that he had sustained five injuries out of which one was found to be grievous.
