Vishnu & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:

3. 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. On the date of incident itself, the first informant had got scribed complaint against the appellants and others and date mentioned in the complaint was August 28, 1995. 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. As the complaint was presented before the police on August 29, 1995, the first informant was asked to change the date of the complaint to August 29, 1995. Accordingly, the date mentioned in the complaint was changed by the 7 first informant from August 28, 1995 to August 29, 1995. On the basis of the complaint 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. The dead body of Sukh Lal was sent for autopsy on August 29, 1995. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of those persons who were found to be conversant with the facts of the case. Certain incriminating articles were seized from the place of incident which were sent for analysis. On completion of investigation, the appellants and others were charge sheeted in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the commission 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. 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 8 and Scheduled Tribes ((Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1985 is triable by Special Judge, the case was committed to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Karauli for trial.

4. Necessary charges were framed against the appellants and others. The charges were read over and explained to them. The appellants and others did not plead guilty to the charges. 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. In the further statements the case of the appellants was that they had not committed the offences alleged but were falsely implicated in the case, because of enmity between the parties relating to the land. The appellant No. 4 herein i.e. Kanta Prasad 9 pleaded alibi and claimed that on the date of the incident, he was in college at Karauli. The appellant No. 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 not participate in the incident. On behalf of the appellants, witness Horilal was examined as D.W. No. 1.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and Lata preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1998 before High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 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.

11. The argument that those who were injured had got admitted in the hospital on August 29, 1995 but none of them had reported the incident to the Police Station during the night of August 28, 1995, and therefore the prosecution case should be disbelieved is devoid of merits. The very examination of the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses almost after 24 hours would not 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. It is for this precise reason that Dr. Meena who had initially examined the injured witnesses, stated that the duration of the injuries sustained by the injured was between 7 to 17 hours. The information given by Medical Board, specially 20 constituted to examine the injured perfectly synchronizes with the time of injuries mentioned by the injured witnesses. It is true that none of the injured had gone to the Police Station in the night of August 28, 1995 to lodge the complaint. However, as noticed earlier, the dead body of deceased Sukh Lal was lying in the house and therefore it is but natural that the injured would like to be by the side of the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, non filing of complaint on the same day, by any of them would not exhibit unnatural conduct on their part so as to give benefit of doubt to the appellants. This Court further notices that deceased Sukh Lal had expired on August 28, 1995 itself and the post mortem on his dead body was conducted at 12.45 P.M. on August 29, 1995. As per the post mortem report his death had occurred within 18 hours which supports the claim made by the first informant and others that Sukh Lal had expired on August 28, 1995 in the incident which took place at about 7.00 P.M. The medical evidence on record is absolutely in tune with the prosecution version in so far 21 as time and date of occurrence is concerned. There is no dispute that Sukh Lal was not taken to the hospital immediately on receipt of injuries by him because he was dead and the other injured witnesses were examined medically only on August 29, 1995. The injured witnesses were subjected to searching cross- examination by the defence but this Court finds that not a single question was put to any of the injured witnesses as to why he had not taken medical treatment immediately or shortly after receipt of injuries by him. Only Birma Bai stated in her evidence that the injured had gone to the hospital in jeep. However, in cross- examination she made herself very clear by stating that they had gone to the hospital next day after cremation of Sukh Lal was over.

14. As the appeal is dismissed, the two applications for bail do not survive. Hence they stand accordingly disposed of.

September 15, 2009