1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT State of Raj. Vs. Lokendrapal Singh & Anr. S.B.CR. APPEAL NO. 555/1998. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 1st August, 2008. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr B.K.Sharma,Public Prosecutor, for the State. None present, for the respondents. BY THE COURT Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 28th March, 1997 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran has acquitted the accused respondents Dhanpal Singh and Lokendrapal Singh in the offences under Section 307, 323, 325, 380 I.P.C., and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place on 25th September, 1994 at 10.30 A.M., in village Bhavgarh Distt. Baran. It is stated that the injured PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh was sitting under the tree of `Khezari'. His son 2 Girriraj Pal Singh and tractor driver Ramesh Meena were working in the field. Meantime, Shri Mohan Lal Meena and Bajrang Lal Meena alighted from a bus and joined him there. Both Mohan Lal and Bajrang Lal suddenly got up. The complainant Ratan Pal Singh asked them as to why did they get up suddenly. Soon after it, the pallets of cartridge fired from the gun hit his back. He looked at the back and found accused Lokendra Pal Singh armed with a gun in his hand aimed towards him. The complainant immediately lied down on the ground. Thereafter, he opened one more fire and fled away. Meanwhile, his son PW-1 Giriraj Pal Singh came there to whom the complainant narrated the entire incident. 3. The accused Dhanpal Singh was charged for the offences under Section 307 in alternate 307/34, 325 and 323 of IPC and his son Lokendra Pal Singh was charged for the offences under Section 307 in alternate 307/34, 323, 325 in alternate 307/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and 380 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to further 3 its version, has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Both the accused in their explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., claimed innocence and on completion of trial both were not found guilty for the aforesaid charges and thus acquitted as indicated hereinabove. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents Hence, heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court as also the relevant material available on record. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused respondent Lokendra Pal Singh has expired on 3rd August, 2002. The S.H.O., P.S. Bara has reported on the back of the notice issued by this Court that Lokendra Pal Singh S/o Dhanpal Singh by caste Rajpoot, R/O Bhavgarh, P.S. Mangrole, Distt. Baran died on 3rd August, 2002 and this fact has been supported by the death certificate issued by the competent authority, a certified photostat copy of which has been sent by him. In view of the 4 report of S.H.O, P.S. Mangrole Distt. Baran and the death certificate, the criminal appeal pending against the accused respondent Lokendra Pal Singh abates under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. 6. Turning to the case of accused Dhanpal Singh, the crucial question springing for consideration in the appeal is as to whether offences under Sec. 307, 325 and 323 of IPC are proved against him? 7. The fact-situation emerging in the case is thus: (i) The Parchabayan, Ex.P/7 of Ratan Pal Singh does not exhibit any overt act of the accused Dhanpal Singh. PW- Ratan Pal Singh has stated that when the pallets of cartridge fired from the gun hit his back and thereafter, when he looked back, he found the accused Lokendra Pal Singh standing, armed with a gun in his hand aiming towards him. About the accused Dhanpal Singh, he has simply stated that he was standing behind accused Lokendra Pal Singh, Dhanpal Singh is not found to have any arm in his hand nor any overt act has been attributed to him. 5 (ii) The injured PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh has reiterated the same statement before the Court also on oath. He has further submitted that he was standing wayside on the road but contrary to him PW/1 Giriraj Pal has stated that Dhanpal Singh was also armed with a gun. This statement has not been corroborated by any witness including his father PW/7, Ratan Pal Singh. (iii) The learned trial Court has critically examined the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including the statements of PW/1 Giriraj Pal Singh, PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh, PW/2 Surendra Singh, PW/8 Rampal Singh, and PW/13 Dr. Mohan Chand Jain in detail and properly appreciated the medical evidence. PW/13 Dr. Mohan Chand Jain, has found two injuries caused by blunt weapon on his jaw; one injury at the right side of eye and 13 lacerated wounds including 10 injuries on different sites of back. (iv) PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh has stated that the accused Lokendrapal Singh shot only one fire from the gun which hit his back. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that single fire that too from the back of the injured, cannot cause injuries on the back as also on the front of his body. The injuries as 6 described by the injured are not found to be corroborated by the medical evidence. The lower Court has also found material contradictions in the statements of PW/1 Giriraj Pal Singh and PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh which render the whole prosecution case doubtful. (v) So far as the accused Dhanpal Singh is concerned, neither it is proved that he was having any arm in his hand nor it is proved that he caused any injury on the back or front of the injured Ratan Pal Singh. There is not even a shred of evidence available on record which may reflect that both the accused had a common intention to kill Ratan Pal Singh and the accused Lokendra Pal Singh shot the fire from gun in furtherance of the said common intention. The statements of PW/1 Girrajpal Singh and PW/7 Ratan Pal Singh do not inspire any confidence as the evidence is laden with contradictions on material particulars and also does not stand corroborated by medical evidence. 8. The judgment of the lower Court is cogent and well-merited. It does not suffer from any infirmity. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court and to my firm view, the 7 impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 9. For these reasons, the criminal appeal with regard to accused respondent Lokendra Pal Singh stands abated and the criminal appeal with regard to accused Dhanpal Singh being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. /gandhi