Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 296 (RAJ)

Durga Ram S/o Jeeya Ram v. State

2022-02-01

SAMEER JAIN, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.30/12:- Accused -appellant :-Shanker Ram @ Shanker Lal Offence Section Sentences Fine Sentence in under lieu of default of payment of fine 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 1 Year's Additional R.I. 148 IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 2 Months' Additional R.I. 307/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months' Additional R.I. 325/149 IPC 5 Years' RI Rs.5,000/- 4 Months' Additional RI 323/149 IPC 1 Year's RI Rs.500/- 1 Month's additional RI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused-appellants:- Prakash, Modaram, Ramlal,Badriram, Durgaram and Mohanram Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 1 Year's Additional R.I. 148 IPC 3 Years' R.I. Rs.1,000/- 2 Months' Additional R.I. 307/149 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months' Additional R.I. 325/149 IPC 5 Years' RI Rs.5,000/- 4 Months' Additional RI 323/149 IPC 1 Year's RI Rs.500/- 1 Month's additional RI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded to them, they have approached this Court through this appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below:- 3. Udaram (PW.1) S/o Shri Govindram Meghwal, R/o Sherera, Police Station Napasar was admitted at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner on 26.06.2011. His Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) was recorded by the SHO PS Napasar at about 10.15 pm wherein, Shri Udaram alleged that on that very day, at around 4 O' clock, he, his father Govindram and brother Mukhram were present in their home. His father had gone towards the funeral ground to attend the call of nature. The informant heard some commotion and thus, he along with his brother Mukhram rushed towards the source of the noise. His brother Mohanram's wife told them that their father was being beaten. On proceeding, they saw their father Shri Govindram being assaulted by Prakash S/o Shri Toluram Meghwal, Modaram S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal, Shanker Ram S/o Shri Jiyaram Meghwal, Durgaram S/o Shri Jiyaram, Mohanram S/o Shri Baluram Jat, Badriram S/o Shri Tolaram Meghwal and Ramlal S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal who were armed with barchhis, lathis, rake (jaiee) and axes. On proceeding, they saw their father Shri Govindram being assaulted by Prakash S/o Shri Toluram Meghwal, Modaram S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal, Shanker Ram S/o Shri Jiyaram Meghwal, Durgaram S/o Shri Jiyaram, Mohanram S/o Shri Baluram Jat, Badriram S/o Shri Tolaram Meghwal and Ramlal S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal who were armed with barchhis, lathis, rake (jaiee) and axes. Both brothers i.e., Udaram and Mukhram tried to intervene on which, they too were beaten by the accused persons with their respective weapons. Shanker Ram was armed with a barchhi of which, he gave a blow on the head of Govindram, who fell down and even thereafter, all the accused persons continued to rain blows with lathis and barchhis. Shanker Ram gave a barchhi blow on the head of the Mukhram due to which, he too fell down. The assailants who had launched a concerted attack, caused injuries to all three on their heads and limbs with an intention to kill them while hurling insinuations that these persons should be killed. Previously, a quarrel had taken place between them owing to digging of a trench and because of this enmity, the attack had been made. Thereafter, the accused persons went away from the spot. Tilokaram and Hansraj, cousins of Udaram brought a camel- cart in which, all three were taken to their house in an injured condition and from there, they were brought to the hospital. On the basis of this Parcha-Bayan (Ex.P/1), an FIR No.72/2011 (Ex.P/29) came to be registered at the Police Station Napasar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and investigation was assigned to Sarjeet Singh, (the then CO Sadar Bikaner) who conducted spot investigation and collected blood stained soil etc. from the place of incident. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Shri Mukhram expired on 27.06.2011 while undergoing treatment at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. Udaram and Govindram were subjected to medical examination whereas, the dead body of Mukhram was subjected to autopsy. The accused appellants were arrested and during the course of the investigation, incriminating recoveries were effected in furtherance of the informations provided by them to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Udaram and Govindram were subjected to medical examination whereas, the dead body of Mukhram was subjected to autopsy. The accused appellants were arrested and during the course of the investigation, incriminating recoveries were effected in furtherance of the informations provided by them to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After concluding investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 323, 323/149 IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner for trial where, charges were framed against the accused appellant Mohanram for all the above offences. However, since the other accused persons belonged to the SC category, charge for the offence under Section 3 (ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not framed against them and they were charged for the remaining offences. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 74 documents so as to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused offered a bald denial to the allegations levelled against them in the prosecution case and exhibited five documents but did not choose to lead any oral evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above whereas the accused appellant Mohanram was acquitted from the charge under Section 3(ii)(v) of the SC/ST Act by judgment dated 11.07.2019 which is assailed in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel Shri Mridul Jain, assisted by Shri Bhagat Dadhich, vehemently and fervently urged that the trial court committed grave factual and legal errors while appreciating the evidence and recording guilt of the appellants in the above terms. He submitted that as a matter of fact, the incident took place over a trivial dispute of dirty water flowing from the house of the complainant party towards the house of the accused. The accused persons were trying to dig a trench for diverting the dirty water flowing in the direction of their houses at which point of time, a free- fight broke out between the parties. The accused persons were trying to dig a trench for diverting the dirty water flowing in the direction of their houses at which point of time, a free- fight broke out between the parties. The accused persons were not the aggressors. No unlawful assembly was formed by the accused persons and as a matter of fact, the incident took place at the spur of the moment without there being any prior meeting of minds between the accused persons. The first informant Udaram (PW.1) has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence while giving Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) and as such, his testimony is liable to be discarded. Udaram (PW.1) admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the assault being made on Mukhram and Mohanram and thus, the trial court wrongly considered him to be an eye-witness of the incident. The evidence of the witnesses Govindram (PW.2), Smt. Shanti (PW.3), Lichchhiram (PW.4), Hansraj (PW.12) and Smt. Maladevi (PW.14) is full of contradictions and is not reliable. Shri Jain referred to the statement of Dr. Bhavesh Bohra (PW.9), the medical jurist and urged that the doctor admitted in his cross-examination that he could not give a specific opinion regarding the nature of head injury caused to Mukhram, as to whether it was caused by a sharp weapon or a blunt weapon. He further urged that Shanker Ram was armed with a barchhi as per the witnesses whereas, the medical jurist did not state that the head injury of Mukhram was caused by the blow of a sharp weapon and thus, as per Shri Jain, the occular testimony is not corroborated and is rather contradicted by the medical evidence. His alternative submission was that even if the evidence of the eye- witnesses is to be relied upon, then also, it is clear that that the fatal blow inflicted to the deceased Mukhram is specifically attributed to the accused Shanker Ram and as such, there was no reason for the trial court to have invoked Section 149 IPC to convict the other accused persons by applying the concept of vicarious liability. Regarding the accused Shanker Ram, Shri Jain urged that a solitary injury is attributed to the said accused on the head of Mukhram during a sudden fight and thus, the accused Shanker Ram can at best be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. Regarding the accused Shanker Ram, Shri Jain urged that a solitary injury is attributed to the said accused on the head of Mukhram during a sudden fight and thus, the accused Shanker Ram can at best be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. On these grounds, Shri Jain implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants. His alternative submission was that the appellants other than Shanker Ram are entitled to a complete acquittal whereas the conviction of the accused appellant Shanker Ram deserves to be toned down from that under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC with an appropriate reduction in sentence. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of Shri Jain and urged that the prosecution has led convincing evidence to the effect that the accused formed an unlawful assembly after arming themselves tooth and nail. Initially, the helpless old man Govindram who had gone to relieve himself, was assaulted. When he raised a hue and cry, his sons Udaram and Mukhram rushed to save their father on which, the accused persons diverted their attention towards these two boys. As many as ten injuries were inflicted to Govindram. A head injury by a sharp weapon was inflicted to Mukhram and in addition thereto, a significant blow was given on his abdomen. A blunt weapon blow was given on the head of Udaram and in addition thereto, a blow was inflicted on his leg which resulted into a fracture. The injuries caused to Mukhram were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and hence, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is absolutely justified. On these submissions, it was contended that the prosecution has proved its case as against the accused persons beyond all manner of doubt. It was also submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective while arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused persons by the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. They thus, implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment by dismissing the appeal. 6. It was also submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective while arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused persons by the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. They thus, implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment by dismissing the appeal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 7. Now, we proceed to discuss and analyze the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses: 8. Udaram (PW.1) being the first informant stated on oath that the incident took place about two years and three months ago. The time was around 5 O' clock in the evening. 9. He and his brother Mukhram were at their house. His father had gone in the open for attending the call of nature. Seven assailants namely Mohanram, Prakashram, Toluram, Badriram, Modaram, Ramlal, Prakashram, Durgaram and Shanker Ram launched an attack on his father. Mohanram was having a barchhi with which he gave a blow on the head of Shri Govindram. Shanker Ram also inflicted a barchhi blow on the head of Shri Govindram. Modaram assaulted his father with a Sela and Ramlal with a rake (jaiee). Durgaram was also armed with a rake (jaiee) whereas the remaining assailants were having lathis in their hands. He and his brother Mukhram ran towards the place where his father was being assaulted and tried to save him. Shanker Ram and Mohanram inflicted barchhi blows to Mukhram. Shanker Ram also inflicted a barchhi blow on his right knee due to which, his knee-cap broke. The assailants surrounded and beat him up with lathis due to which, he fell down and became unconscious. His brother Hansraj brought him to the hospital. The incident took place because of a trivial quarrel over digging of a ditch. His brother Mukhram expired as a result of the injuries and he and his father were injured. 10. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused persons live in the same locality and their houses were close-by to his house. The accused persons were living there since generations. Earlier, there was affinity between them and the accused. His Parcha-Bayan was recorded by the SHO PS Napasar. He denied the suggestion that Mohanram was not present with the accused. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused persons live in the same locality and their houses were close-by to his house. The accused persons were living there since generations. Earlier, there was affinity between them and the accused. His Parcha-Bayan was recorded by the SHO PS Napasar. He denied the suggestion that Mohanram was not present with the accused. The place where his father had gone to relieve himself was at a distance of one kilometer in the southern direction. He did not see the accused persons going to beat his father. He was confronted with the following contradictions/omissions vis-a-vis his sworn testimony and the Parcha Bayan:- (a) that Mohanram inflicted a blow on the head of his father. (b) that Modaram inflicted a Sela blow to his father. (c) that Ramlal inflicted a rake (jaiee) blow to his father. (d) that Durgaram was armed with a rake (jaiee). (e) that when they were trying to save their father, Mohanram and Shanker Ram inflicted barchhi blows to Mukhram. (f) that Shanker Ram also inflicted a barchhi blow to him (Udaram) as a result whereof his knee-cap broke. 11. The witness could not reconcile to these material omissions/contradictions in context to his previous version. The witness admitted that other than the dispute of digging of the ditch, there was no animosity between them and the accused. He ran from his house and reached the place of incident which was at a distance of one kilometer. Before he reached there, his father had already been belaboured. Mukhram had reached the place of incident five minutes earlier to him and he too had been assaulted prior to his (Udaram's) arrival at the spot. No sooner, he reached the place, he took care of his father and his brother. Both were unable to speak. He could not elaborate as to the number of injuries inflicted by the particular accused to his brother Mukhram who received 5-7 injuries. He himself received total of three injuries, two on the head and one on the leg all with a barchhi. At the culmination of his testimony, the witness admitted that he did not actually see the injuries being inflicted to Mukhram and Mohanram (sic. Govind Ram). Thus, the evidence of this witness is relevant only to the extent of the injuries inflicted to him. At the culmination of his testimony, the witness admitted that he did not actually see the injuries being inflicted to Mukhram and Mohanram (sic. Govind Ram). Thus, the evidence of this witness is relevant only to the extent of the injuries inflicted to him. In this regard also, there are significant contradictions inter se between his Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) and the sworn testimony because while giving Parcha Bayan, the witness did not allege that Shanker Ram inflicted barchhi blows to him or that the other accused assaulted him with lathis. Therefore, there are significant infirmities in the statement of this witness which make his testimony doubtful and bring him in the category of an unreliable witness even though he himself was injured in the incident. 12. PW. 2 Gomadram is the injured person with whom the incident started. While deposing on oath, he stated that on 26.06.2011 in the evening at about 5 O' clock, he was proceeding to an open place for attending call of nature. His daughter-in-law i.e., Mohanram's wife was also proceeding out for the same purpose. She suddenly shouted and alerted Udaram and Mukhram that Shanker Ram, Mohanram, Modaram, Ramlal, Prakash, Durgaram and Badriram all armed with lathis and barchhis were coming to assault Baba (Gomadram). Shanker Ram and Mohanram were armed with barchhis whereas the others were carrying rakes, lathis etc. Mukhram arrived at the spot and told the accused as to why they were trying to beat his father. On this, Mohanram and Shanker Ram inflicted barchhi blows to Mukhram. Even after Mukhram had fallen down, the assailants continued to beat him with lathis and barchhis. The witness tried to save his son on which, he too was beaten by Motaram with a lathi and Shanker Ram with a barchhi and fell down on the ground. Mohanram allegedly hurled caste based abuses and shouted that all should be killed. He was conscious after the assault and called the police. He knew the accused present in the Court. The incident took place because all the accused would gather at the house of Mohanram and used to threaten that Gomadram's way should be blocked. Mukhram expired on 28th. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was never examined by the police. He had issues with the investigation officers and had filed complaints against Ranidan, SHO. The incident took place because all the accused would gather at the house of Mohanram and used to threaten that Gomadram's way should be blocked. Mukhram expired on 28th. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was never examined by the police. He had issues with the investigation officers and had filed complaints against Ranidan, SHO. He was confronted with many parts of his sworn testimony in context to the police statement Ex.D/1, which the witness denied to have given. In a pertinent question put-forth in cross-examination, the witness stated that after the accused ran away, Nanuram and Tilokaram came around and provided them water etc. Then, Lichhiram came and they were taken home in a camel-cart. 13. The significant fact which emerges from the statement of this witness is that he did not utter a single word regarding having seen injuries being inflicted to Udaram. In the police statement of the witness i.e., Ex.D/1, there is no reference to the accused Mohanram being armed with a barchhi or he having inflicted a blow thereof to the deceased Mukhram. On the contrary, it is categorically recorded in the statement Ex.D/1 that Shanker Ram inflicted a barchhi blow on the head of Mukhram with the intention of killing him whereas the others beat him with lathis, selas and rakes. 14. PW.3 Shanti Devi, wife of Mohanram stated in her evidence that the time was around 5 O' clock in the evening. She was going to relieve herself and her father-in-law was returning after attending the call of nature. At that time, Mohanram and Shanker Ram inflicted barchhi blows to her father-in-law. Seven more persons including Durgaram, Modaram, Ramlal, Badriram and Prakash were following these two assailants. She alleged that her father-in-law was beaten with barchhis, lathis and rakes. She raised a hue and cry on which, her brother-in-law Mukhram came there and tried to save Shri Gomadram. Thereupon, the assailants diverted their attention towards Mukhram. Udaram also came running on which he too was beaten by Mohanram and Shanker Ram. Lichchhiram came to the spot on which, the accused ran towards him and then escaped from the spot. Mukhram was admitted to the hospital. 15. In cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused Mohanram, the witness stated that she was at her house and raised a hue and cry after reaching the place where Govindram had fallen down. Lichchhiram came to the spot on which, the accused ran towards him and then escaped from the spot. Mukhram was admitted to the hospital. 15. In cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused Mohanram, the witness stated that she was at her house and raised a hue and cry after reaching the place where Govindram had fallen down. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Mukhram came to the spot and Udaram reached the place of incident after Mukhram. Udaram was inflicted injuries by the sharp side of barchhi. She was confronted with her police statement (Ex.D/2) wherein it had not been mentioned that Mohanram inflicted a barchhi blow on the head of her father-in-law. She reiterated that her father-in-law received only barchhi injuries which were caused by Shanker Ram. In this police statement, the witness did not allege that Mohanram was armed with any particular weapon. The pertinent allegation of the witness in the statement Ex.D/2 was that the accused Shanker Ram was having a barchhi, of which he gave a blow on the head of her father-in-law as well as on the head of Mukhram. 16. PW.4 Lichchhiram, though tried to pose himself as an eye-witness of the incident but when we examine the cross-examination conducted from him, it becomes clear that this witness admittedly reached the place of the incident 2-4 minutes after Udaram had arrived and thus, there was no possibility of this witness having seen the assault made on any of the three injured persons. 17. PW.14 Mali Devi W/o Govind Ram was also presented as an eyewitness of the incident. However, in cross-examination, the witness admitted that when her relatives had gone to relieve themselves, she was present in the house. It may be stated that none of the witnesses referred to above, stated about the presence of Mali Devi at the spot and therefore, apparently, she was not present when the incident took place. 18. From an overall appreciation of the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses, it becomes clear that the witness Udaram unquestionably did not see the assault being made on his father and his brother. Even otherwise, his evidence is totally contradictory to the testimony of Govind Ram and Shanti. Regarding the injuries caused to Udaram himself, his specific allegation was that Shanker Ram inflicted him a barchhi blow on the head and also hit him on the knee with the very same weapon. Even otherwise, his evidence is totally contradictory to the testimony of Govind Ram and Shanti. Regarding the injuries caused to Udaram himself, his specific allegation was that Shanker Ram inflicted him a barchhi blow on the head and also hit him on the knee with the very same weapon. This allegation of the witness is corroborated by the medical report (Ex.P/11) as per which, a stitched lacerated wound admeasuring 5.5 cms was noticed on his frontal area. He also had a plaster of paris cast on the right leg underneath which, a fracture was noticed. Thus, all that which can be concluded from the statement of Udaram is that Shanker Ram gave him two injuries (referred to supra) with a barchhi either from the sharp side or the reverse side. When we examine the statement of Govindram, it becomes clear that though his statement suffers from various contradictions but unquestionably, the entire incident took place in front of this witness. The witness is a 65 years old illiterate man and thus, some inconsistencies are bound to appear when such a person stands in the witness-box. The witness stated that Shanker Ram and Mohanram were armed with barchhis. The other accused persons were armed with lathis, etc. They started assaulting him. Mukhram tried to save him on which, Mohanram and Shanker Ram gave him barchhi blows. The witness Shanti Devi also alleged that the assault was made by Mohanram and Shanker Ram. She too did not make any specific allegations regarding participation of the other accused persons in the assault. Thus, from an overall appreciation of the evidence of Govindram (PW.2) and Shanti Devi (PW.3), it comes to light that the allegation of inflicting the injuries on the head of Mukhram is specifically against Shanker Ram. The witnesses did make an exaggerated allegation in their sworn testimony that the accused Mohanram also inflicted a barchhi blow on the head of Mukhram but apparently, this was done by way of a sheer improvement from their previous police statements Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses regarding Mohanram having inflicted the barchhi blows to Govindram himself and on the head of Mukhram is not reliable. 19. The genesis of occurrence which has been given out by these witnesses is very vague. Thus, the evidence of these witnesses regarding Mohanram having inflicted the barchhi blows to Govindram himself and on the head of Mukhram is not reliable. 19. The genesis of occurrence which has been given out by these witnesses is very vague. None of the witnesses clarified as to what precisely was the cause behind the incident except for a general suggestion that the incident took place over the issue of digging of a ditch. However, where the ditch was located and as to why the same became a bone of contention between the parties was not clarified by any of the prosecution witnesses, including the IO. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that there was no genuine motive for the accused persons to have launched the assault on the complainant party. 20. Now we proceed to examine the evidence of the Dr. Bhavesh Bohra (PW.9) who was posted as Medical Jurist at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner on 27.06.2011. He stated that he examined Govind Ram, who was admitted in the "C" Ward and took note of the following injuries on his body:- 1. Lacerated wound with stitches admeasuring 6.5 cms on the left frontal area of the head with dry clotted blood. 2. Lacerated wound with stitches admeasuring 3.5 cms on the left parietotemporal part of the head with dry blood clot. 3. Bruise 3 cm x 2.5 cm on the left shoulder 4. Stitched lacerated wound admeasuring 4 cms on the left forearm with dry blood. 5. Bruise admeasuring 6 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the chest. The patient was complaining of pain. 6. Multiple bruises one over the other admeasuring 20.5 cm x 14 cm on the left gluteal region. 7. Multiple bruises admeasuring 7 cm x 2.5 cm to 5 cm x 2 cm on the thigh. 8. Two stitched lacerated wounds on the left leg admeasuring 1.5 x 1 cm 9. Abrasion admeasuring 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left leg 10. Swelling on the right leg which was tender and the patient reacted with pain on touch. 21. X-ray was opined for injuries No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 10. The other injuries were stated to be simple in nature. After x-ray, injury No.10 on the leg was opined to be grievous in nature whereas the other injuries were found to be simple. 22. 21. X-ray was opined for injuries No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 10. The other injuries were stated to be simple in nature. After x-ray, injury No.10 on the leg was opined to be grievous in nature whereas the other injuries were found to be simple. 22. Regarding injuries of Mukharam, the witness stated that a post operative bandage was fixed on the entire head of the injured. The injury No.2 was a bruise admeasuring 7.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the abdomen which was red in colour and was simple in nature. Mukhram expired on 27.06.2011 after which, his dead body was subjected to autopsy by a medical board of which Dr. Bohra was a member. He proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/14). Five injuries were noticeable on the dead body:- 1. Stitched lacerated wound admeasuring 5 cms on the left temporo-occipital area of the head. 2. Surgical stitched wound admeasuring 27 cms on the right frontal parieto temporal area of the head 3. Bruise admeasuring 4.5 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the chest 4. Bruise admeasuring 7.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left side of abdomen 5. Bruise admeasuring 6 cm x 2 cm on the left thigh 23. The board gave an opinion that cause of death of Shri Mukhram was coma as a result of head injury No. 1 and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the medical jurist admitted that he did not notice any injury on the body of Mukhram which could be caused by a blow of a barchhi, sela or a four pronged rake/jaiee or other pointed weapon. He explained that while preparing the injury report, he did not open the bandage and thus, no opinion could be expressed regarding the nature of head injury. As per the treatment documents, a fracture had been found on the left occipital bone and a bone piece admeasuring 16 cm x 10 cm had been surgically removed to release the pressure. Thus, from a perusal of the testimony of the medical jurist, it can safely be concluded that a solitary head injury inflicted to Mukhram resulted into his death. However no definite opinion was expressed by the doctor regarding the injury having been caused by sharp weapon like barchhi. 24. Thus, from a perusal of the testimony of the medical jurist, it can safely be concluded that a solitary head injury inflicted to Mukhram resulted into his death. However no definite opinion was expressed by the doctor regarding the injury having been caused by sharp weapon like barchhi. 24. Udaram was having a lacerated wound with stitches admeasuring 5.5 cm on the left frontal area with dried blood. The injury no.2 was a plaster of paris slab on the right leg. The injury No.1 was found to be simple in nature whereas the injury no.2 was found to be grievous in nature. 25. The investigation of the case was undertaken by PW.17 Sarjit Singh, CO Sadar Bikaner. Besides conducting usual investigation, the witness arrested accused Mohanram vide memorandum Ex.P/17, accused Shanker Ram vide memorandum Ex.P/22, and the accused Prakash vide memorandum Ex.P/24. The remaining accused persons were arrested in the months of February, March and April, 2012. The IO claims to have recovered the weapons of offence on the basis of the informations provided to him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but when we carefully peruse the testimony of the IO, it comes to light that he has not given proper evidence to prove the informations allegedly recorded by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The informations were exhibited in a cursory manner without disclosing the language actually spoken by the accused before the IO. Thus, the informations cannot be relied upon and as a consequence, the recoveries also lose significance. 26. On an overall appreciation of the statements referred to above, it is clear that no reliable evidence has been given by the prosecution witnesses regarding the motive for commission of the crime which is a very important factor in the prevailing facts and circumstances. Udaram (PW.1) was unquestionably not present at the spot when the assault was made on Govindram and Mukhram and hence, the evidence of Udaram is relevant only to the extent of the injuries caused to him which are specifically attributed to the accused Shanker Ram. 27. As per the testimony of Gomadram @ Govindram (PW.2), injuries were inflicted to Mukhram by Mohanram and Shanker Ram. Regarding his own injuries, he alleged that Motaram gave him a lathi blow on his left arm and Shanker Ram also inflicted a barchhi blow on his head. 27. As per the testimony of Gomadram @ Govindram (PW.2), injuries were inflicted to Mukhram by Mohanram and Shanker Ram. Regarding his own injuries, he alleged that Motaram gave him a lathi blow on his left arm and Shanker Ram also inflicted a barchhi blow on his head. Shanti Devi also made general allegations against the accused other than Shanker Ram and Mohanram without specifying the injuries inflicted by them to the injured persons. As per the evidence of medical jurist Dr. Bhavesh Bohra, ten injuries were noticed on the body of Govindram, who stated that after Mohanram hurled an exhortation, a barchhi blow was inflicted to him by Shanker Ram. He fell down whereafter accused persons gave him injuries with rake. This allegation of Govindram is corroborated by the medical evidence because the injuries No.6 & 7 which have been described above would definitely be caused by blow of a multiple-pronged rake. However as stated above, the witness did not attribute the rake injuries to any particular accused. 28. Regarding the injuries of Mukhram, the witnesses Govindram and Shanti made an improvement that both Mohanram and Shanker Ram gave him barchhi blows. However, as per the evidence of medical jurist, Dr. Bhavesh Bohra, only one external injury was noticed on the head of the deceased whereas, the other injuries were bruises on the chest, abdomen etc. regarding which the medical jurist admitted that these injures could be received when an unconscious man is being shifted from one stretcher to another. When the medical report (Ex.P/10) was prepared, only one bruise was noticed on the abdomen of Mukhram whereas in the postmortem report (Ex.P/14), as many as three bruises were noticed. Thus, the possibility of these bruises having been caused during the period Mukhram was under hospitalization and while he was shifted from one place to another cannot be ruled out. Even in the Parcha Bayan, there is no allegation regarding the accused appellant Mohanram being armed with a barchhi or any other weapon. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the medical jurist only to the extent of one head injury having been inflicted to the deceased Mukhram which proved fatal and that is specifically attributed to accused Shanker Ram. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the medical jurist only to the extent of one head injury having been inflicted to the deceased Mukhram which proved fatal and that is specifically attributed to accused Shanker Ram. Thus, the allegation regarding Mohanram having inflicted barchhi injuries to the injured Govindram or the deceased Mukhram is not acceptable as it is not established by convincing evidence. 29. As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to lead convincing evidence to satisfy the Court that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, the common object whereof was to murder Mukhram or to cause injuries to injured Udaram and Govindram. We are of a strong opinion that invocation of Section 149 IPC for convicting the accused persons is totally uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 30. As an upshot of the finding recorded above, the conviction of the appellant Shanker Ram is affirmed for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 IPC. However, he is acquitted from the charge under Sec. 148 IPC. The remaining accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The impugned judgment dated 11.07.2019 is modified accordingly. 31. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. The accused appellants Durgaram, Modaram, Prakash, Ramlal, Badriram and Mohanram are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 32. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A Cr.P.C., the accused appellants Durgaram, Modaram, Prakash, Ramlal, Badriram and Mohanram are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.