Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1276 (RAJ)

Hukma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-07-23

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against a judgment dated 20.4.1992, whereby the appellant was found guilty under section 333 of the IPC and was awarded a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- . For non- payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for two months was awarded. 2. As many as 14 accused persons, including the appellant Hukma Ram, were put to trial under Sections 147, 353/149, 333 and 333/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the prosecution story on 27.2.1990, on the election day when polling was going on in Village Kudi, the followers of two political parties, each side numbering between 150- 200 people, were indulging in stone throwing at each other. The SHO Police Station Bhopalgarh PW6, Sant Kumar alongwith other police personnel reached the place of trouble and tried to calm down the two warring groups. As the stone throwing was going on, one stone struck the SHO Sant Kumar and he fell unconscious. According to the prosecution story this stone was thrown by the appellant. 4. The FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged by the Constable Bhanwroo khan. A case under Sections 147,148,149, 336,332,353,323 and 307 of the IPC was registered against as many as fourteen persons and the FIR contained the names of all the accused persons including their parentage, caste and place of residence. One Ramjeewan S/o Gumana Ram was also named as an accused. However, after investigation no challan was filed against Ramjeewan. Challan was filed against fourteen persons under sections 147,333,353 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code All the fourteen persons pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. No defence evidence was led. The learned court heard the arguments and convicted the accused-appellants under Section 333 of the IPC and acquitted him of all the other charges. The remaining thirteen persons were acquitted of all the cahrges. Feeling aggrieved, Hukma Ram has filed this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the only point raised by him is to the effect that the evidence in respect of the identity of Hukma Ram is highly suspect and on that account alone, he is entitled to acquittal. 6. Feeling aggrieved, Hukma Ram has filed this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the only point raised by him is to the effect that the evidence in respect of the identity of Hukma Ram is highly suspect and on that account alone, he is entitled to acquittal. 6. It is not in dispute that PW1 Bhanwroo Khan, PW2 Hari Singh and PW3 Aam Singh have been examined to provide corroboration to the testimony of the injured PW6 Sant Ram. All these three persons allegedly accompanied Sant Kumar and were posted at Bhopalgarh as Constables. In this way no person from village Kudi who could identify the accused persons, has been examined. 7. Sant kumar PW6 during his cross- examination admitted that because of lapse time he cannot recognise any of the accused persons including the appellant. In view of this it becomes highly suspect that PW1 Bhanwroo Khan, PW2 Hari Singh and PW3 Aam Singh could be expected to recognise the appellant correctly. No witness has stated that the appellant was previously known to him. In such cases it is expected that the witnesses of this nature should tell as to under what circumstances the person concerned was previously known to him. As pointed out earlier, the FIR contains all the names including the parentage, caste and place of residence. Bhanwroo Khan was asked, as to how did he know the parentage of the fourteen accused persons. He replied that from the other persons who were present, enquiries were made and as a result of enquiries, the names were mentioned. Needless to say that apart from the warring factions there were other spectators from whom they allegedly ascertained the names. Strangely enough, none of the spectators has been put into the witness box. In these circumstances, it becomes very suspect that the witnesses would not be making mistake in respect of persons who were involved in the incident. 8. There were hundreds of persons who were pelting stones, at each other and in the process Sant Ram received the injury. PW2 Hari Singh and PW3 Aam Singh have tried to say that the appellant said that, This SHO is to be killed and after uttering these words the stone was thrown. However, PW1 Bhanwroo Khan and PW6 Sant Kumar do not say that any such thing was uttered by the appellant. PW2 Hari Singh and PW3 Aam Singh have tried to say that the appellant said that, This SHO is to be killed and after uttering these words the stone was thrown. However, PW1 Bhanwroo Khan and PW6 Sant Kumar do not say that any such thing was uttered by the appellant. There are contradictions in respect of the manner of throwing the stones. PW2 Hari Singh has stated that the stone was not in the hand and it was hurled at the injured with the help of a sling. However, PW1 Bhanwroo Khan, PW3 Aam Singh and PW6 Sant Ram do not say that any sling was used. From their testimony it comes out that the stones were in the hand and were being thrown by hands. PW2 Hari Singh has also admitted that Hukma Ram was previously not known to them. 9. The prosecution side has taken care to not to examine an independent person out of the crowd of said spectators. So much so that the Motbirs on the Site Plan Ex.P/2 are both police constables who were not eye- witnesses. Sant Kumar has admitted that Hukma Ram was not previously known to him. He does not say that he was previously known to the constables who were accompanying him. In his statement Ex.D/1, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.RC., the names and parentage of all the fourteen accused persons are narrated. He has admitted that the names and parentage were given by him as he was told by the people who were accompanying him. Hari Singh, Aam Singh do not say that any enquiries regarding the names etc. were made from the public. 10. In the result, I find that on account of the sole question of identification the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.4.1992 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge.Appeal allowed. *******