Skip to content


State of Rajasthan Vs. Magna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)457
AppellantState of Rajasthan
RespondentMagna and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....accused-persons may have acted in exercise of the right of private defence of their person. the learned sessions judge, therefore, observed that so far as bhura accused is concerned, the evidence by the prosecution is unworthy of any credence. as regards the other accused magna and mathura are concerned as well the prosecution case as put forward, cannot be believed. it may be stated that the findings, which have been arrived at by the learned sessions judge can legitimately be arrived at on the appreciation of the evidence and it can not be said that the evidence has been wrongly appreciated by the learned sessions judge. there are no reasons for interferring in the findings arrived at by the learned sessions judge.;appeal dismissed. - - they were not having good relations. the key..........heera, while mathura gave beating by lathi and the accused bhura gave an axe blow on the head of heera. heera's brother nathu immediately came there to rescue and tried to catch the axe from the hand of bhura. at that time, he got an injury on his right thumb. the prosecution case further is that the accused magna also hit him by stones but mathura beat with lathi. on account of injuries, heera because unconscious and thereafter, he succumbed to his injuries. babulal lodged the first information report (ex. p/l) but after the death of heera, he lodged another report (ex p2) at the police station, bigod. pw 11 laxmi narain, s.r.o. registered the case and conducted the investigation. he recorded the statements of babulal pw 1, nathu pw 2, bholiya pw 5 and teja pw 6. autopsy on the.....
Judgment:

Milap Chand Jain, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 23, 1974 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the offences under Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 323, IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Heera deceased and the accused Magna were cousins. They were not having good relations. Criminal litigations were going on between the parties. The accused Magna had instituted a case of theft and Heera deceased had initiated criminal proceeding under Section 107, Cr. P.C. There was a dispute between the parties in respect of some land, which was a pond and the cattle of the village used to take water from it. The accused wanted to cultivate that land to which the deceased Heera opposed. The occurrence in this case took place on March 24, 1974 at about 8 or 9 a.m. The key of the house of Magna was lying on the well. The accused Magna came to Babulal, Chairman, Nyaya Panchayat and asked him that he may get the key of the house lying at the well from Heera. Thereupon, Babulal went with Magna towards the well. Heera then came from the opposite direction. The met at some distance from the well. According to the prosecution case, the accused Magna pelted stones at Heera, while Mathura gave beating by lathi and the accused Bhura gave an axe blow on the head of Heera. Heera's brother Nathu immediately came there to rescue and tried to catch the axe from the hand of Bhura. At that time, he got an injury on his right thumb. The prosecution case further is that the accused Magna also hit him by stones but Mathura beat with lathi. On account of injuries, Heera because unconscious and thereafter, he succumbed to his injuries. Babulal lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/l) but after the death of Heera, he lodged another report (Ex P2) at the police station, Bigod. PW 11 Laxmi Narain, S.R.O. registered the case and conducted the investigation. He recorded the statements of Babulal PW 1, Nathu PW 2, Bholiya PW 5 and Teja PW 6. Autopsy on the dead-body was got conducted and the injuries on the person on Nathu as well as Bholiya were also got examined. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused-persons. All the three-accused-persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, to whom the case was committed for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the accused-persons, hence the State has now come up in appeal.

3. We have heard Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J. M. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused-respondents.

4. In order to establish the guilt against the accused-persons, the prosecution examined four witnesses as eye-witnesses of the occurrence viz. PW 1 Babulal PW 2 Nathu, PW 5 Bholiya and PW 6 Teja. The learned Sessions Judge had discussed the evidence of these four witnesses and has found that the evidence of the four eye-witnesses does not connect the accused persons with the commission of offence. PW 2 Nathu has himself sustained injuries on his person. His testimony does not get corroboration from the testimony of Babulal and Bholiya. Babulal (PW 1) and Bholiya (PW 5) have not stated that the accused Bhura was present at the scene of occurrence and was armed with an axe. It may be mentioned that Bholiya is also one of the injured person and he has not supported the testimony of Nathu. The learned Judge found material contradictions in their statements. He was contradicted with his police statement, where he did not mention that the accused Magna had hit him by stones on his head. He was also contradicted with the medical evidence. He stated that the accused Mathura had beaten him by lathi on his right hand and also on his left calf but his statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence. He further stated that Mathura had snatched the axe from the hand of Bhura and then he inflicted an injury on the belly of Heera deceased. As a result of which, Heera's intestines came out. But statement is not corroborated either by the statements of Bholiya and Balu or by the medical evidence. In view of these discrepancies, reliance has not been placed by the learned Sessions Judge on his testimony. This testimony is believed to the extent that Heera was hit by Mathura by means of shoes. Now the incised wound was received by Heera was not established by the testimony of this witness, and it was observed that the witness came a bit-late. Teja's evidence has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. Both Balu and Bholiya have denied the presence of Teja at the spot. Besides that various discrepancies have also been taken note of, on that basis his presence was considered doubtful. Another most material circumstance, which casts a serious doubt on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that Magna has sustained as many as six injuries, out of which injury No. 5 is the incised wound on the left side of the face near the angle of mouth. The other injuries are abrasions and contusion of the parietal protuberance and two abrasions on the left side of occipital protuberance. Injuries on the person of Mathura have not been explained by the prosecution. It is quite probable that the accused persons may have acted in exercise of the right of private defence of their person. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, observed that so far as Bhura accused is concerned, the evidence by the prosecution is unworthy of any credence. As regards the other accused Magna and Mathura are concerned as well the prosecution case as put forward, can not be believed. It may be stated that the findings, which have been arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge can legitimately be arrived at on the appreciation of the evidence and it cannot be said that the evidence has been wrongly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. There are no reasons for interfering in the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently we uphold the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and find no merit in this appeal.

5. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //