1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Rewant Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan. D.B.Cri. Jail Appeal No.661/2002 Under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and conviction dated 27.02.02 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh, in Sessions Original Case No.60/2001 (39/2000) . ....... Date of Order: 23th July, 2007. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr.Kalu Ram Bhati for the appellants. Mr.JPS.Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT :(PER HON.MR.BHAGWATI PRASAD,J.)- The present appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ratangarh in Sessions Original Case No.60/2001 (39/2000) dated 27.02.02. 2 The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a statement given by the injured Deram Ram to PW /12 Ranveer Singh, Head Constable in Govt. Hospital, Dungargarh. According to the statement given to the Head Constable Ranveer Singh Deram Ram stated that there is a way through his field. He shifted the way near the boundary as the existing way was bisecting the filed in between. The accused appellant bore grudge against the deceased. On 25.08.00 at about 09.15 PM when he was taking a bundle of grass from the field to the village, then while he arrived near the court yard of Karma Ram , accused appellants came. Rewant Singh accused was armed with a 'lathi' and Roop Singh had a 'pharsi'. Both of them started hitting simultaneously. At that time villagers Nathu Ram , Bhoma Ram and Ramkaran reached there. Then the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Witnesses Bhoma Ram and Ram Karan took the injured to the hospital. There his statement was recorded and First Information Report was lodged on the basis of such report under Section 307, 341 and 323 IPC. During the course of treatment, the injured died and the case was converted into Section 302, and 341/34 IPC. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed . The 3 case was committed to the court of Sessions, from where the case was transferred to the trail court. Charges under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302/34 and 341 IPC were framed. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was produced. Five documents were exhibited by the defence. Doctor examined the injured. He found 30 injuries on the person of the deceased. On post mortem it was found that the injuries were responsible for causing death of the deceased. Multiple fractures were also found on the person of the deceased. The trial court believed the testimony of PW/1 Ramkaran, PW/2 Bhoma Ram PW/7 Derajram and PW/8 Natharam. The trial court also adverted on the statement of Deram Ram, Ex.P/11, on the basis of which the first information report was recorded. This being the last statement of the deceased, could be termed as dying declaration also. In this dying declaration, presence of Derajram, Ramkaran, Jeevan Ram ,and Nathu Ram, has been recorded . Specific weapons have been assigned to the accused. Rewant Singh has been assigned 'lathi' and Roop Singh has been assigned 'pharsi'. 4 The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the case of the prosecution is not made out because the eye witnesses who were present, would have definitely rescued the deceased because they were more than six in number. There is difference in the assigning of weapons to accused . The witnesses are chance witnesses. There is no reason why the accused would have assaulted the deceased for a trifle matter to the extent that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It appears to be a case where some unknown assailants were there, who caused the injuries. The learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case where the eye witnesses have deposed against the accused and the statement made by the deceased, Ex.P/11, to Police Head Constable, being the last statement of the deceased, can be read as a dying declaration which assigns injuries to the accused and the weapons have been assigned correctly and in that background, if the case of the prosecution is judged, the treatment of the evidence, as given by the trial court, cannot be found fault with and in that background, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be sustained. We have heard the learned counsel and have given our thoughtful consideration . 5 The case is based on direct evidence. There are as many as 31 injuries on the person of the deceased, as delineated in dying declaration, with multiple fractures. The case of the prosecution is supported by eye witnesses and statement of the injured himself who have clearly assigned weapons and injuries to the accused persons. The statement of deceased Deram Ram as contained in Ex.P/11, will be treated as dying declaration. In view of the fact that the accused and the witnesses have been named in the first information report, which can be termed to be the dying declaration also, being the last statement of the deceased before the investigation started , may be before the police, thus is admissible and that statement is corroborated by the witnesses. Thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence , we do not find fault with the judgment of the trial court and in that view of the matter, the finding of the trial court that the accused are held guilty under Section 302/34 and 341 IPC is maintained and the sentences passed against the accused persons are upheld. In the result, the conviction and sentence as passed against the accused persons are maintained . No fault is found with 6 the case of the prosecution. The appeal of the accused persons are, therefore, rejected. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. (BHAGWATI PRASAD), J. L.George