JUDGMENT 1. - The instant cr. jail appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants Kirta Ram, Vijay @ Bajrang and Dula Ram against the judgment dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.45/2004 whereby the learned trial court convicted all the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 325 341, 325 and 325/34 and passed the following sentences: Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month additional imprisonment. Under Section 307 IPC Seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC one year RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months additional imprisonment. Under Section 341 IPC One months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days additional imprisonment. Under Section 325 IPC Seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. Under Section 325/34 IPC Seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. 2. Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to observe that due to death of accused appellant Dula Ram S/o Gota Ram on 17.9.2007 the appeal of Dula Ram was dismissed as abated vide order dated 1.5.2015 passed in this appeal. 3. As per the facts of the case, a written report was submitted by the complainant PW-9 Om Prakash (injured witness) on 5.2.2004 before the SHO, Police Station, Napasar, District Bikaner in which it was alleged that today when the complainant and his father deceased Bhura Ram going to the house, at that time, from the village Sahajrasar near agricultural field of Banna Ram situated 10 kms away from Runiya Bada Bas, the accused appellants Dula Ram, Kirta Ram and Vijay @ Banjrang all of sudden came there and restrained their way. The accused Kirta Ram who was having axe inflicted injury upon the right side of the head of his father Bhura Ram, at that time, he fell down from the cattle cart. Thereafter, Dula Ram inflicted injury by weapon Jai near right eye and Vijay @ Banjrag inflicted injury by Lathi to his father Bhura Ram. Upon intervening the complainant was also assaulted by Bajrang, Dula Ram and Kirta Ram by their weapons. It is further alleged that all the accused appellants not only caused injuries upon the body of father of the complainant, but his father Bhura Ram has been thrown in the fire. At the time of incident, two persons came on tractor at the site of occurrence and asked the accused appellants not to commit offence, but they did not hear them. Upon above written report at Police Station, Napasar where FIR No.7/2004 was registered on 5.2.2004 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused appellant. 4. After usual investigation, the accused appellants were arrested and after arrest on the basis of evidence collected in the investigation, ultimately, challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, 325 and 201 IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial in the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where the case was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner for trial. 5. After framing the charge, the learned trial court proceeded for trial and recorded the statements of 13 witnesses including injured eye witnesses PW-9 Om Prakash and during trial 44 documents were exhibited as evidence to prove the prosecution case. After recording evidence, the learned trial court recorded statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellants said that totally false case has been registered against them. Further stated that the character of deceased Bhura Ram was not good and in the alleged incident they are not involved. More so, they are falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. It is also submitted that the recovery made from them is totally false. In defence no oral evidence was produced by the accused appellants, but 7 documents were exhibited in the trial from the defence side. 6. More so, they are falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. It is also submitted that the recovery made from them is totally false. In defence no oral evidence was produced by the accused appellants, but 7 documents were exhibited in the trial from the defence side. 6. The learned trial court after recording entire evidence finally heard the arguments and vide its judgment dated 31.1.2006 convicted the accused appellants for the offences aforesaid and passed the aforesaid sentence. 7. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellants vehemently argued that totally concocted story is framed by the prosecution so as to indulged the accused appellants in the alleged incident of murder. While attacking upon the author of the FIR PW-9 Om Prakash S/o Bhura Ram it is submitted that the said witness who is alleged to be eye witness was not present at the time of occurrence, therefore, the testimony of the said witness PW-9 Om Prakash deserves to be rejected, but learned trial court completely relied upon the story narrated by the complainant Om Prakash PW-9, which is not corroborated by other evidence therefore, the finding of guilt given by the learned trial court for commission of offence may kindly be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in this case prosecution has failed to prove the fact that who has written the report Ex.P/31, therefore, the whole basis of the case of prosecution cannot be treated to be proved because it is not established that who has written the FIR because admittedly, the PW-9 Om Prakash was of 15 years of age at the time of occurrence and registration of the FIR. It is pointed out that PW-9 Om Prakash accepted in his statement that he is not understanding meaning of so many words mentioned in the FIR, therefore, this fact itself proves that due to enmity with Sarpanch Ram Lal false case was concocted against the appellants to involve them in a serious case of murder. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the character of the deceased Bhura Ram was bad, therefore, obviously any person was having motive to kill the deceased and this aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned trial court. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the character of the deceased Bhura Ram was bad, therefore, obviously any person was having motive to kill the deceased and this aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned trial court. While questioning upon the statements of PW-4 Luna Ram, it is submitted that his statements were recorded after long delay, so also, the so called recovery from him was made from the open place where there was no door, therefore, there is reasonable doubt whether the accused appellants were involved in the alleged crime or prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. Further, it is submitted that no offence under Section 201 IPC is made out because according to the statement of PW-1 Bhura Ram S/o Lalu Ram who came on spot after 15 minutes of the incident, his signatures were obtained upon some papers, but from where the papers were made available on spot, therefore, it is a case in which there was no evidence of motive to kill the deceased Bhura Ram. More so, the appellants are sufferer of the conspiracy hatched by Ram Lal, Sarpanch of the area, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that by leading trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses and other witnesses of recovery of the incident, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial court for commission of offence under Sections 302, 307, 325 341, 325 and 325/34 IPC against the accused appellants does not require any interference. With regard to argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was not motive, it is submitted that the accused appellants themselves accepted that character of the deceased Bhura Ram was not good and every resident of the said village was having motive to kill him. This argument itself is sufficient to say that there was motive with the accused appellants because according to them Bhura Ram deceased became problem for the village, therefore, obviously, there was motive left with the appellants. This argument itself is sufficient to say that there was motive with the accused appellants because according to them Bhura Ram deceased became problem for the village, therefore, obviously, there was motive left with the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that injured eye witness PW9 Om Prakash S/o Hanuta Ram and PW4 Luna Ram categorically corroborated the allegation levelled in the FIR by the eye witness PW-9 Om Prakash, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence which is apparent from perusal of the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P/27). According to prosecution, it is a case in which the deceased was brutally murdered by the accused appellants and his body was thrown in the fire by the accused appellants, therefore, the accused appellants have rightly been punished by the learned trial court for committing such a heinous offence of murder, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, we have minutely perused the entire evidence and considered the arguments advanced by both the side. Admittedly, in this case, there is injured eye witnesses, author of FIR PW-9 Om Prakash son of the deceased. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, we have minutely perused the entire evidence and considered the arguments advanced by both the side. Admittedly, in this case, there is injured eye witnesses, author of FIR PW-9 Om Prakash son of the deceased. The said witness categorically gave following statement in the Court, which is as under: " Hkwjkjke esjs firkth Fks] vkt ls djhc 19 ekg igys dh ckr gS] vanktu 9 cts dk le; Fkk] ge cM+s ckl ls rstjklqj ds dPpk jkLrk ls tk jgs Fks] ge mBxkMk ij tk jgs FksA ge djhc vanktu 10 fdyksehVj nwj igqaps Fks] rc ckM Fkh vkSj ckM ds lgkjs nqykjke] fdjrkjke] fot; fNis gq;s FksA fdjrkjke ds gkFk esa dqYgkM+h Fkh] nqykjke ds gkFk esa tsbZ Fkh] fot; ds gkFk esa ykBh FkhA lcls igys fdjrkjke us esjs ckck Hkwjkjke ds dqYgkM+h ds pksV flj esa ekjh FkhA ;g pksV yxus ds ckn esjs ckck Hkwjkjke xkMk ls uhps iM+ x;s] uhps fxjus ds ckn nqykjke us tsbZ dh esjs ckck Hkwjkjke ds vka[k ds uhps ekjh FkhA ctjaxyky us ykBh ds gkFk ij esjs ckck Hkwjkjke pksV ekjh FkhA eSa dwndj uhps buds chp esa iM+k rks fot; us ykBh dh pksV esjs gkFkksa o iSjksa ij ekjhA nqykjke us esjs vka[k ds uhps pksV ekjh Fkh] fdjrkjke us esjs exjksa ij pksV dqYgkM+h ls ekjh FkhA ekjihV djds [khaiks dh ckM Fkh oks nqykjke us tyk nh Fkh] ckM tykdj rhuksa us ,d jk; gksdj eq>s o esjs ckck Hkwjkjke dks tyrh vkx esa Mky fn;kA vkx esa Mkyrs le; eq>s iwNk fd xkMk esa dkSu&dkSu vkSj gSa] eSaus dgk fd esjk HkkbZ gSA brus esa ,d V~sDVj vk x;k ml V~sDVj ij nks vkneh Fks] mu nksuksa V~sDVj okyksa us yydkjk dh NkSjs D;k dj jgs gksA rc oks rhuksa V~sDVj okyksa ds lkeus gks x;sA tc rhuksa mu V~sDVj okyksa ls ftnus yxs rks eSa vkx ls fudydj Hkkx x;k Fkk vkSj eSa Hkkxrk&Hkkxrk 6 [ksrok nwj ,d >ksiM+h Fkh ogka igqapk] ogka ,d vkneh cSBk Fkk] eSa ikl ls xqtjus yxk rks ml vkneh us eq>ls iwNk fd dgka tk jgk gS rks eSa ml vkneh ds ikl :d x;k] vkSj mlus esjh gkyr ns[kdj eq>s dgk fd ikap feuV cSB tk] eSa mlds ikl cSB x;k vkSj esjs cSBus ds ckn mlus eq>s ikuh fiyk;k vkSj ikuh fiykus ds ckn eq>s iwNk fd D;k ckr gqbZ] rks eSaus ml vkneh dks gksbZ tSlh ckr crkbZ] eSa ikuh ihdj jokuk gksus yxk rks mlus eq>s dgk fd ;gha cSB tk] rq>s vxj dksbZ vkneh vkxs [kM+k gksxk rks ekj nsxkA eSa ml vkneh ds ikl nks&<+kbZ ?kUVk rd cSBk jgk FkkA fQj mlus dgk fd vc rw pyk tk] vkSj oks vc rd ogka FkksM+s gh cSBs gksaxs] rw ns[kdj vkA eSa fNirk&fNirk ogka x;kA eSaus ckn esa nwj ls ns[kk fd xkao ds vkneh ogka [kM+s Fks vkSj iqfyl ogka [kM+h FkhA mudks ns[kdj eq>s dqN fgEer ca/kh vkSj eSa ogka x;k vkSj tkus ds ckn dbZ;ksa us dgk fd mls ;g rks Hkwjkjke dk csVk vk x;kA " 11. In the cross-examination also, the said witness reiterated the story because he was present at the time of occurrence and received injuries, which is evident from the injury report (Ex.P/28) in which 6 injuries are mentioned which is said to be caused at the time of occurrence. Meaning thereby, the presence of eye witness Om Prakash is not trustworthy doubtful. More so, upon perusal of his statement and post mortem report (Ex.P/27) and injury report (Ex.P/28) it is abundantly clear that the story narrated by the eye witness has completely been corroborated by the medical evidence. We have also perused the statement of PW6 Dr. Mahesh Bhardawaj, who has categorically proved the post mortem report of Bhura Ram (Ex.P/27) as well as the injury report (Ex.P/28) of PW-9 Om Prakash. We have also perused the statements of PW4 Luna Ram, who went on spot and saw the incident. The said witness PW4 Luna Ram gave the following statement in the court, which reads as under:- " fn0 5-2-2004 dks 10&10-30 cts dh ckr gSA eSa o vkseizdk'k gsesjk ls ukFkokuk tk jgs Fks vkxs Hkwjkjke dks nwykjke] fdjrkjke c'tyky mQZ c'tkjke ekjihV dj jgs FksA nqykjke ds ikl tsbZ] fdjrkjke ds ikl dqYgkM+h] c'tkjke ds ikl ykBh FkhA geus cksyk fd nqykjke D;k dj jgk gS rks nqykjke tsbZ ysdj gekjs lkeus vk x;k o dgk fd thuk pkgrs gks rks fudy tkvksA gekjs ns[krs&ns[krs Hkwjk dks vkx esa Mky fn;kA vksedk chp esa iM+k rks mls Hkh vkx esa iVd fn;kA fQj eSa rks V~SDVj ysdj fudy x;kA fQj ge lgtjklj igqaps ogka xqokM+ esa 5&10 tus cSBs Fks ftudks geus ckr crk;h fd Hkwjkjke dks ekj fn;k gS o ,d yM+dk gS ftls cpk ldks rks cpkyksA fQj ge ywudjlulj pys x;s ogka Hkwjkjke ds yM+ds xksiky dks lkjh ckr crk;hA gkftj vnkyr rhuksa eqyfteku dks tkuk gwaA " 12. In the cross examination also, so many questions were put to this witness, but he has categorically proved the prosecution story. We have also perused the statement of PW11 Om Prakash S/o Hanuta Ram, who went on the spot along with PW-4 Luna Ram when the incident took place. In the cross examination also, so many questions were put to this witness, but he has categorically proved the prosecution story. We have also perused the statement of PW11 Om Prakash S/o Hanuta Ram, who went on the spot along with PW-4 Luna Ram when the incident took place. The said witness PW11 Om Prakash gave the following statements in the court, which reads as under:- " fnukad 5-2-2004 dh ckr gS] eSa o yw.kkjke lqcg djhc xkao ls jokuk gksdj yw.kdjulj tk jgs Fks] tks ge V~SDVj ls tk jgs FksA djhc nl&lok nl cts lqcg ge :f.k;k cM+k ckl ls djhc 10 fdyksehVj nwj igqaps rks Vhys ij tSls gh p<+s rks ns[kk fd jkLrk ij vkx yxk j[kh FkhA vkx yxkus okys nqykjke o mlds nks yM+ds FksA nqykjke ds ikl tsbZ] cM+s yM+ds ds ikl dqYgkM+h o mlds NksVs yM+ds ds ikl ykBh FkhA gekjs ns[krs&ns[krs Hkwjkjke dks vkx esa Mky fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds yM+ds dks Hkh vkx esa Mky fn;k FkkA gesa nqykjke cksyk dh thuk pkgrs gks rks nwljs jkLrk ls pys tkvksA ge V~SDVj eksM+dj nwljs jkLrk ls pys x;s FksA fQj jkLrk esa lgtjklj xkao dk ljiap feyk] fQj geus mldks ?kVuk crk nh FkhA fQj ge lgtjklj xkao esa pys x;s vkSj lgtjklj xkao dh xokM+ esa 5&10 vkneh cSBs Fks mudks ;g ?kVuk crk nh FkhA ogka ls ge yw.kdjulj xkao pys x;sA yw.kdjulj xkao esa eSa rks jkLrk esa mrj x;k Fkk] mlds ckn eq>s irk ughA " 13. In the cross-examination of this witness he has corroborated the evidence given by PW9 Om Prakash injured eye witness, therefore, on the basis of evidence on record it is a case in which the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt while leading trustworthy evidence of eye witness. We have also perused the statement of PW6 Dr. Mahesh Bhardwaj and perused the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report (Ex.P/27) of Bhura Ram dated 5.2.2004 in which following injuries are mentioend, which reads as under: (1) Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x Bone deep on right parietal region of scalp. (2) Penetrating wound 3 cm x 2 cm 2 9 deep to facial bones. (3) Swelling c # both bones of . fore arm (4) Burnt & Peeled skin patch on (L) arm. (5) Burnt & Peeled skin on left leg. (2) Penetrating wound 3 cm x 2 cm 2 9 deep to facial bones. (3) Swelling c # both bones of . fore arm (4) Burnt & Peeled skin patch on (L) arm. (5) Burnt & Peeled skin on left leg. (6) Burnt & peeled skin patches on right leg from . knee to . ankle (7) Brunt and peeled patch on chest all over." 14. We have perused the injury report of injured eye witness PW-9 Om Prakash (Ex.P/28) also in which it is found that 6 injuries were sustained to him in the occurrence. Meaning thereby, the medical evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves the case of prosecution. 15. In the report of FSL (Ex.P/43) human blood was found upon the CAP, Gamcha and Kulhada. In view of the above trustworthy medical evidence, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is obvious that the trial court while relying upon the statements of injured eye witnesses PW9 Om Prakash, PW-1 Bhura Ram S/o Lalu Ram, PW4 Luna Ram and PW11 Om Prakash S/o Hanuta Ram and other witnesses of recovery of weapon Khulhada correctly held that prosecution has categorically proved the case of alleged murder of deceased Bhura Ram. 16. With regard to the evidence of recovery, we have perused the statements of PW-3 Magha Ram in whose presence the recoveries are made. The said witness has categorically said that upon information given by the accused Kirta Ram, one axe was recovered vide Ex.P/21 and site plan of place of recovery was also prepared, which is Ex.P/22. Similarly, upon information given by the accused appellant Vijay @ Banjrang one Lathi was recovered vide Ex.P/23 and site plan of place of recovery was also prepared, which is Ex.P/24. Similarly, upon information given by accused appellant Dula Ram, one Jai was recovered vide Ex.P/25 and site plan of the place of recovery was prepared as Ex.P/23 in which his signatures are bearing. Similarly, the Investigating Officer PW-12 Vishnu Dutt categorically proved all the exhibits which were prepared in the investigation including the exhibits of recovery of weapons. 17. Similarly, upon information given by accused appellant Dula Ram, one Jai was recovered vide Ex.P/25 and site plan of the place of recovery was prepared as Ex.P/23 in which his signatures are bearing. Similarly, the Investigating Officer PW-12 Vishnu Dutt categorically proved all the exhibits which were prepared in the investigation including the exhibits of recovery of weapons. 17. In view of the above facts, it is obvious that weapons axe was recovered from the accused appellant Kirta Ram and Lati was recovered from accused Vijay @ Bajrang and as per FSL the blood was found upon the axe, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has not only led evidence of eye witnesses, but also proved the recovery of weapon by leading trustworthy evidence. Therefore, in our opinion, no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the accused appellant for the offence committed by them. 18. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no motive but upon consideration of the evidence of the eye witnesses, other witnesses and recovery of weapons, we are of the opinino that the way in which the incident took place in front of eye witnesses, it cannot be said that there was no motive left with the accused appellant to commit murder of late Bhura Ram. In our opinion, the findings given by the learned trial court for conviction under Sections 302, 307, 325 341, 325 and 325/34 are perfectly based upon the trustworthy evidence of prosecution. More so, it emerges from the entire evidence that the deceased Bhura Ram was brutally murdered and thrown in the fire by the accused appellants in front of his minor son, i.e., PW-9 Om Prakash, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding given by the learned trial court for conviction and punishment given to the accused appellants under Sections 302, 307, 325 341, 325 and 325/34. 19. Consequently, this jail appeal is hereby dismissed. The accused appellant Kirta Ram is in the custody, but the accused appellant Vijay @ Bajrang is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and arrest warrant be issued against the accused appellant Vijay @ Bajrang and after arrest he may be lodged in jail to serve the remaining sentence.Appeal Dismissed. *******