1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.501/1986. : : Balwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. : : Date of Order 1.8.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.R.K.Mathur with Mr.Ajay Raj Tantia for the appellant. Mr.Shyam Arya, P.P., for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.9.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarbas whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 325 & 323 IPC and extended him the benefit of probation for maintaining good conduct for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the offences against the appellant were not proved beyond reasonable doubt in inasmuch as there were number of contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses namely; Shri Ram, Yadram, Ashok, Balveer, Khiloo and Ami 2 Chandra. It was argued that PW.3 Shri Ram could not corroborate his version which is stated in FIR and he has thereafter substantially improved his first version. Injured PW.2 Yadram has also not remained consistent in his statement and his version does not inspire confidence. This is why one of the prosecution witnesses PW.5 Khiloo has not supported the prosecution story. PW.2 Yadram when he stated that he was thrown in the well by the accused- appellant and the co-accused Kartar Singh, made a false statement. On the other hand, he has also stated that he was sitting by the side of the diesel engine fitted in the well. In fact, true version has been given by PW.5 Khiloo who has stated that father of injured Yadram forced him to go in the well and sit on the platform till the police came. The learned trial Court could not believe PW.3 Ashok as he was minor. It was also argued that the conviction of the accused-appellant was not justified when presence of co-accused Kartar Singh was held to be doubtful and he was acquitted on the same set of evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that Yadram was mercilessly beaten by the accused-appellant inasmuch as injured suffered 18 injuries, 3 as per the x-ray report Ex.P/6, injury report Ex.P/7 and the nature of injuries being proved by PW.8 Dr.Om Prakash. It was argued that accused-appellant was armed with lathi and it is mainly his role that has been proved by all the prosecution witnesses including PW.2 Yadram injured and his brother PW.6 Ashok. It was argued that merely because one of the prosecution witnesses PW.5 Khiloo turned hostile, does not prove that the version of other prosecution witnesses was not believable. In fact, x-ray plate Ex.P/5 and x-ray report Ex.P/6 which were proved by Dr.P.S. Pahuja, have clearly proved that the injured Yadram had fractures of both his fore arms. Learned trial Court further taking into consideration the age of the accused at that time has taken lenient view by convicting him only for offence under Section 325 IPC and further extended the indulgence by granting benefit of probation. It was submitted that no interference is required by this Court in this matter. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the learned trial Court and evidence on record, I find that the injured PW.2 Yadram indeed has suffered number of injuries totaling 18 as evident from Ex.P/7 injury report. Out of these 18 injuries, two 4 injuries are in the nature of fracture of both his fore arms. These injuries and the fractures have been proved by PW.8 Dr.Om Prakash and PW.7 Dr. P.S. Pahuja. PW.2 Yadram has categorically proved the role of the accused-appellant and has withstood the scrutiny during cross-examination. Similarly other prosecution witnesses such as PW.3 Ashok, PW.1 Sri Ram, PW.4 Balveer, PW.6 Ami Chandra have all remained consistent in their statements as to the role of the appellant that he was armed with lathi and subjected the injured Yadram to mercilessly beating. Evidence available on record does prove the offences against the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court has, however, keeping in view that the accused-appellant was only 18 years old at the time of incident, granted indulgence by extending him benefit of probation. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, no substance in this appeal. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.14.