AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 of the CrPC by the appellants is to the judgment dated 4.11.2004 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 15/2003, whereby appellant No.1-Lachhiram @ Laxminarayan is convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 302
and 323/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to undergo two years RI, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, six months RI and three
years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively with default stipulation; appellant No.2-Raju @ Rajesh is convicted and sentenced under Sections 148,
302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC, to undergo two years RI, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, six months RI, respectively with default stipulation;
appellant No.3-Satish Kumar and appellant No.4Smt. Ramabai are convicted under Sections 147, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC, and each appellant
is sentenced to undergo one year RI, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, six months RI, respectively with default stipulation. The jail sentences
of each appellant are directed to run concurrently.Â
It would be significant to mention here that by impugned judgment another tried accused Ramjilal was acquitted from the charge of Sections 29 and
30 of the Arms Act and Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 of the IPC and though the trial Court had also framed charge against another co-accused
Rinku @ Dharmendra S/o Lachhiram but during trial on 23.1.2003 it was ordered that he is a juvenile, hence later on he was tried before the Juvenile
Justice Board.
Prosecution's case in nutshell is that on the date of incident, i.e., 28th June, 2002 at 21=30 hrs. in town Mehgaon, when complainant Subedar Singh
(PW-3) was at his house, his nephew Indrapal Singh (PW-9) informed him that his father is being beaten by the appellants and Rinku. Complainant's
brother Devendra was residing in the same lane. After running the complainant reached in front of the house of appellants, then he saw that the
appellant Raju armed with an axe, appellant Satish and above mentioned Rinku, each having stick, were beating Devendra by their respective
weapons and at that time appellant No.1-Lachhi Ram was having a topidar gun. When complainant tried to save his brother, appellants Raju, Satish
and above mentioned Rinku assaulted the complainant and caused injuries to him. When Devendra tried to run towards Mou road, appellants Raju,
Satish and their mother and Rinku exhorted after abusing that 'Devendra is escaping, shoot him by the bullet'. Thereafter, appellant No.1-Lachhiram
fired a shot from his topidar gun, which caused pellet injuries on the back and buttock of Devendra, who fell down and he was immediately taken by a
cart to Mehgaon hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The incident was witnessed by Indrapal, Sarnam and Sudamabai (Bhabhi of the
complainant). On 25th June, 2002 appellant Raju had beaten one Ramphal Tikkiwala, then Devendra had intervened and due to this reason, his brother
Devendra was murdered by the appellants and Rinku. Leaving the dead body in the hospital complainant Subedar Singh reached police station
Mehgaon. FIR (Ex.P/3) lodged by Subedar Singh was scribed by SHO K.D. Sonakiya, TI, who in the same night at 22.15 hrs reached spot but in next
morning, at the instance of the complainant in presence of Panch witnesses, inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared spot map (Ex.P/4). After
reaching at Mehgaon hospital, in presence of Panch witnesses after inspecting the dead body, prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/1) in the midnight and
application for postmortem was submitted and after recording the FIR, complainant Subedar Singh was sent for his medical examination.
At Mehgaon hospital Dr. B.S.Kushwaha (PW-2) examined the complainant Subedar Singh on 28th June, 2002 and recorded MLC (Ex.P/2). On
29th June, 2002 SHO K.D.Sonakiya (PW-15) at 6.35 am, seized bloodstained grit and separately simple grit from the spot vide seizure memo
(Ex.P/15). In presence of Panch witnesses, on 29th June, 2002 at 7.45 am Dr. R.K.Taneja (PW-13) started autopsy of the dead body of Devendra
Singh and recorded his PM report (Ex.P/20). The deceased's clothes and three pellets taken out from the dead body were sealed by the doctor in
separate packets and sent to the relating police station. Appellants Satish and Raju were arrested on 1st July, 2002 and on disclosure statement of
appellant Raju @ Rajesh, an axe was seized by the Investigating Officer K.D.Sonakiya in presence of Panch witnesses vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13)
and on disclosure statement of appellant Satish on 2nd July, 2002, a stick (lathi) was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo (Ex.P/14).
Above mentioned Rinku @ Dharmendra was also arrested on 1st July, 2002. Appellant Lachhiram @ Laxminarayan and acquitted accused Ramjilal
were arrested on 3rd July, 2002 by separate arrest memos and on 3rd July, 2002 on production by Lachhiram in presence of Panch witnesses, a
topidar double barrel gun and its licence issued in favour of Ramjilal were seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7). Sealed
packets of seized material like firearms, pallets and clothes of the deceased were sent to FSL Sagar, whose reports (Exts. P/24 and P/25) received
later on.
After completing formal investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the ACJM Mehgaon, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge,
Bhind, who transferred the sessions trial to above mentioned trial Court.
Present appellants abjured the guilt. Before the trial Court, Kalyan Singh (PW-1), Dr. B.S.Kushwaha (PW-2), complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3),
Udai Singh Chouhan (PW-4), deceased's wife Sudama Devi (PW-5), Sarnam Singh (PW-6), Ramavtar Shivhare (PW-7), Rajendra Kumar (PW-8),
Indrapal (PW-9), Patwari Sukhlal (PW-10), Manoj Kumar Sharma (PW-11), Mahendra Singh Chouhan (PW-12),Dr. R.K.Taneja (PW-13), Ramakant
Shukla (PW-14) and Investigating Officer K.D.Sonakiya (PW-15) were examined. It was the defence of present appellants before the trial Court that
they have been falsely implicated in the case. It was the defence of the acquitted accused Ramjilal that the seized gun was his licenced gun and he
was called at police station with gun and licence where gun and licence were taken by the police. Three defence witnesses, Govind Singh (DW-1),
Ramvaran Singh Yadav (DW-2) and Lochan Das (DW-3) were examined for the appellants.
The trial Court after hearing acquitted Ramjilal from the charge of Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act and Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149
of the IPC but it convicted and sentenced the present appellants as aforesaid.
It is clear from the deposition of Dr. R.K. Taneja (PW-13) and his post-mortem report (Ex.P/20) that on 29th June, 2002 in morning at the time of
starting of post-mortem of deceased Devendra Singh and he recorded following injuries in post mortem report on his dead body:-Â Â
(i) Bluish contusion, size 2â€x3†on front side of left ear;
(ii) Reddish contusion, size 6â€x1†obliquely placed below the left scapular area;
(iii) Seven round shaped red coloured signs on right buttock, whose margins were burnt and all these seven signs were also having blackening;
The Autopsy Surgeon opined that these seven signs of right buttock were actually wounds caused by pellets of firearms, whose margins were
inverted.
The deceased's worn pant was also having holes and on dissection of the dead body, two pellets were taken out from right rectus muscle and one
pellet was found in the abdomen of the deceased; abdominal cavity was filled with blood, large intestine was ruptured and fecal matter had also fallen
in abdominal cavity. In the opinion of the doctor, all the three external injuries were ante mortem and Devendra had died due to injuries caused by
firearm, resultant excessive bleeding and arisen shock within 18 hours from the starting of his post mortem. The nature of death was homicidal and the
injury caused by firearm was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. When Dr. Taneja was re-examined on 9th October, 2003 then
he explained that by mistake previously on 19th August, 2003 he deposed that an entrance wound caused by firearm was found on right side of the
abdomen but actually no external injury was found on the abdomen, however three pellets were found in the abdominal cavity and as on 19th August,
2003 he was not having proper spectacle, hence he could not rightly read over his post mortem report. He opined in cross-examination that firearm
injury should have been caused from a distance of 7-8 feet, as it was having blackening. It is nobody's case that Devendra Singh's death was
accidental or suicidal, hence it is proved that on the date of incident, i.e., 28th June, 2002, deceased Devendra met with a homicidal death.
It is clear from the evidence of Dr. B.S. Kushwaha (PW-2) that in the night of 28th June, 2002 at Community Health Centre, he found following
external injuries on the body of complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3), who was brought by a police constable before him:-
(i) An abrasion, size 1/4â€x1/4†on middle part of the right leg;
(ii) An abrasion, size 1/4â€x1/4†on middle finger of right hand;
(iii) A contusion 1â€x1†on right side of waist and he was complaining pain because of this injury.
Dr. B.S. Kushwaha (PW-2) proved his MLC (Ex.P/2) regarding complainant and opined that all the three injuries of complainant were appearing
to be caused by hard and blunt object within 12 hours from his examination and all were of simple nature.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that though allegedly incident occurred in the residential area of town
Mehgaon, only relative and interested witnesses complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3), Sudama Devi (PW-5), Sarnam Singh (PW-6) and Indrapal (PW-
9) have supported the prosecution's case, whereas alleged independent witnesses of the incident, Ramavtar Shivhare (PW-7) and Rajendra Kumar
(PW-8) turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution's case against the appellants. It is further argued that the deceased's wife and son
deposed that they had seen the incident, but it is clear from their evidence that they did not intervene at the time of incident to save Devendra, hence,
their conduct is unnatural. It is also contended that though allegedly a member of unlawful assembly, Rinku @ Dharmendra, was later on tried before
Juvenile Justice Board, appellants Raju @ Rajesh, Satish and Smt. Ramabai could not be held guilty for murder of Devendra caused in furtherance of
common object of alleged unlawful assembly, as according to the prosecution's case, the fatal injury caused by gun was inflicted only by appellant
No.1Lachhiram. It was further contended that the alleged motive of murder was not of such nature or magnitude that could instigate any appellant to
cause murder of deceased Devendra Singh. It is also argued that according to the evidence of wife of deceased Sudama Devi (PW-5), at the time of
incident the deceased was carrying a transistor or radio in his hand but during investigation no such transistor or radio was recovered by the
investigator. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from the above mentioned charges.
On the other hand, supporting the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants, it has been contended by the Public Prosecutor that
the trial Court has properly and legally analyzed the evidence produced by both the parties and has not erred in convicting and sentencing each
appellant.
Hence, the dismissal of appeal is prayed.
Complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3), Sudama Devi (PW-5), Indrapal Singh (PW-9) and Sarnam Singh (PW-6) deposed as eye-witnesses in
support of the prosecution's case, whereas Ramavtar Shivhare (PW-7) and Rajendra Kumar (PW-8) alleged other eye-witnesses turned hostile and
did not support the prosecution's case. Subedar Singh (PW-3) deposed that after receiving information from his nephew Indrapal (PW-9), he reached
at about 9 or 9=30 pm in front the house of appellants and saw that appellants Raju, Satish, Ramabai and Rinku were assaulting his brother Devendra
with sticks and axe and at that time Lachchiram was having a gun and when he tried to save his brother Devendra, then appellant Raju with axe,
Satish with stick, Rinku and their mother Ramabai also assaulted him and he received injuries in his waist, calf and fingers. When his brother
Devendra started running towards Mou road, then other appellants instigated Lachchiram to shot a fire on Devendra as Devendra was running,
thereafter appellant Lachchiram fired a shot from his topidar gun, whose pellets hit on back side of waist of Devendra and Devendra immediately fell
down on road. The complainant deposed that at the time of incident Chakrapal Rathod, Rajendra (PW8), Ramavtar (PW-7), Deewan, Sarnam
(PW-6) and Mahendra Singh were also witnessing the incident.
He deposed that his brother Devendra had run about 10-20 paces from the place of his prior beating, then he was shot dead by Lachchiram.
Sudama Devi (PW-5) deposed that at the time of incident, she was inside her house, but after hearing crying of her husband she came out of her
house with son Indrapal and saw that all present appellants and Rinku were beating her husband and she sent Indrapal to call his Uncle Subedar, who
immediately reached on spot. Indrapal (PW-9) substantially supported the evidence of his mother and uncle. Sudama Devi deposed that before the
incident at about 8=00 pm her husband had gone out of the house for bringing bidis and at that time her husband was having a radio or transistor.
Sarnam Singh (PW-6), resident of village Kuhar, deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to his sister's inlaws' house at village Chhimka
and on the date of incident returned to town Mehgaon and at about 9=30 pm he was standing at the bus-stand, then he saw that appellant Raju with
axe and Rinku, Satish and Ramabai were giving beating to Devendra and Ramabai was by fists and kicks assaulting Devendra; when Devendra
started running then all other appellants and Rinku told to Lachchiram that Devendra should be shot dead and he should not be kept alive, thereafter
Lachchiram fired from his gun which caused injury on back side of waist of Devendra and he fell down. Sarnam is a panch witness of spot map
(Ex.P/4), some arrest memos of appellants and Rinku and of various seizure memos relating to an axe from the appellant Raju and a stick from Satish
vide seizure memos Ex. P/13 and Ex.P/14 respectively, and is also a panch witness of seizure of blood-stained soil and simple soil by the police vide
seizure memo (Ex.P/15).
Hostile declared witness Ramavtar Shivhare (PW-7) deposed that after hearing the sound of firing of gun he reached on spot and saw the injured
Devendra lying on the ground, but he did not see any appellant at that time. Another hostile declared witness Rajendra Kumar (PW-8) deposed that in
the night of date of incident, he saw the dead body of Devendra. Both these hostile declared witnesses deposed that no incident occurred in their
presence. 18. Sarnam Singh (PW-6) deposed that deceased Devendra was also originally resident of village Kuhar, where he resides, therefore it is
argued by learned appellants' counsel that he is not an independent witness but only because of the above mentioned fact Sarnam Singh could not be
termed as interested witness. He deposed in crossexamination that at the time of incident after being frightened he remained stood at some distance
and did not intervene.
Much emphasis has been given by learned counsel for the appellants on the facts deposed by complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3) in his
crossexamination that each appellant except Lachchiram had inflicted 10-20 blows to Devendra and Raju assaulted Devendra by blunt side of axe
whereas these facts are missing in his FIR (Ex.P/3) and police statement (Ex.D-1). Just after the incident it is proved by the evidence of Dr.
B.S.Kushwaha (PW-2) that the complainant was having injuries. The incident occurred in residential area of town Mehgaon and complainant,
deceased and appellants are neighbours residing in the same lane, hence in the night at about 9=00 pm, the presence of family members of deceased
Devendra and that of appellants could not be doubted. Only due to some contradictions, discrepancies, exaggerations and improvements by the
complainant and other prosecution witnesses, their evidence could not be discarded totally.
Regarding improvements or exaggerations made by some of the prosecution witnesses, it has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of
State of UP vs. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998) as follows :-
“13. Of late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is
rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases,
the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the
public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to
reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for
want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or
embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a
good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 Cal WN 626 :
(AIR 1919 PC 157), the Privy Council had this to say:
That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly
unture, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence.
In Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an
easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort
to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff.
It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no
ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the
Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly
to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent
man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the
Judge has to perform.â€
Complainant Subedar Singh (PW-3) and Sarnam Singh (PW-6) deposed in their crossexamination that appellant Lachchiram had fired on
Devendra when he was at 10 paces or 15 feet away from Devendra whereas according to evidence (Para 6) of Dr. R.K.Taneja (PW-13), fire should
have been made on deceased from a distance of 7 feet. It is proved that deceased received injuries from pellets fired by a firearm, hence in light of
citation of Bharat Singh vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1999 SC 717 = (2002) 2 LRI 580], it could not be inferred that ocular evidence is contradicted by
medical evidence.
Investigating Officer K.D. Sonakiya (PW-15), who recorded FIR (Ex.P/3) on 28.6.2002 and prepared spot map (Ex.P/4) on next day in morning,
deposed in cross-examination (para 11) that from which place firing of gun by Lachchiram was shown is about 40 feet away from the place where
the blood of deceased was lying on road. From the spotmap (Ex.P/4) it appears that the adjacent houses of appellants and deceased Devendra are
situated in a lane called Munshi or Rajesh Lane, whereas the place where injured Devendra fell, is shown as Mou road of town Mehgaon where this
lane joins the main road. The distance of the point, wherefrom shot was shown to be fired, is shown as about 40 feet. From spot map (Ex.P/4) it
appears that Lachchiram had fired from his gun in front of the house of Ramhet Tyagi, which is shown at 40 feet distant from the appellants' house. It
is evidence of the prosecution witnesses that at the time of firing by Lachchiram, Devendra was running to save his life and incident had occurred in a
residential area, hence possibility of the incident being witnessed by so many persons could not be ruled out.
It is clear from the evidence of complainant and other eye-witnesses that when complainant Subedar Singh tried to save his brother Devendra,
then some appellants started complainant's beating and in the meanwhile when Devendra was running to save himself, then Lachchiram fired a shot
on him by his gun. In such situation, the argument that the wife of deceased and his son did not try to save Devendra appears to be futile and
meaningless. Subedar Singh (PW-3) clearly deposed that on the date of incident moonlight as well as electricity light was available and on this point his
evidence is supported by Investigating Officer K.D. Sonakiya (PW-15). The incident had occurred in the residential area of town Mehgaon, hence it
could not be inferred that at about 9=30 pm incident occurred in complete dark.
It is also argued on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged motive mentioned by the complainant and other prosecution
witnesses does not appear so serious to provide common object to unlawful assembly for murder of the deceased Devendra. Complainant Subedar
Singh and his family members have deposed that two days prior to the date of incident appellant Raju had given beating to one Ramphal Tikkiwale,
then Devendra and complainant Subedar had gone with Ramphal to the Police Station Mehgaon for lodging the report of that incident, hence
appellants became annoyed with the deceased and caused the incident. Head Constable Ramakant Shukla (PW-14) had deposed in para 3 that on
26th June, 2002 at Police Station Mehgaon as Head Constable Moharrir he had written oral report made by complainant Ramphal regarding non-
cognizable offence, whose original Ex.P/22 was brought by him at the time of recording of his deposition and its certified copy (Ex. P/22-C) is
annexed in the record of the trial Court. In Ex. P/22 it was mentioned by the complainant Ramphal that the incident occurred on 25th June, 2002 at
11=00 pm was also witnessed by Devendra Singh and Jaswant Kushwaha. Therefore, the deposition of complainant on this point is corroborated by
Ex.P/22. It is well settled that motive is important in cases of murder based on circumstantial evidence but, in murder cases where ocular evidence of
eye-witnesses is available then in such cases motive is not having much importance.
Investigating Officer K.D.Sonakiya (PW-15)'s evidence regarding disclosure statement of appellant Raju @ Rajesh (Ex.P/11) and regarding
seizure of an axe vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13) is corroborated by its Panch Witnesses Sarnam Singh (PW-6) and Mahendra Singh (PW-12). Though
it appears from FSL report (Ex.P/25) that relating axe was not sent to FSL, but only due to fault or negligence of Investigating Officer on this point
evidence of eye-witnesses could not be discarded. 26. Investigating Officer K.D.Sonakiya (PW-15) deposed that on 3rd July, 2002 after appellant
Lachchiramm's arrest vide arrest memo (Ex.P/5), he seized a topidar gun from Lachchiramm with its licence issued in favour of Ramjilal and
prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/7). On this point the evidence of Investigating Officer is corroborated by panch witness Subedar Singh (PW-3). It is
significant to mention here that licence holder Ramjilal is real brother of appellant Lachchiram, who was also tried before the trial Court and Ramjilal
was acquitted by the trial Court. Ramjilal in his examination conducted by trial Court under Section 313 of the CrPC expressed that the seized gun in
the case is his licensed gun. It is not the case of the appellant Lachchiram that his real brother Ramjilal resides separately from him. The report of
ballistic expert of FSL Sagar (Ex.P/24) confirms that seized gun was a double barrel muzzle loading gun in working condition and in its both barrels
remains of previous fired shots were found, though it was not possible to state that on last occasion when shot was fired from it and the effectiveness
of muzzle loading gun depends on the quantity of the used gun powder and used projectile's size and type and it is also opined in the report that in
general loading condition, pellets fired from such gun would have effective firing range of about 100 gauge and three pellets recovered by the autopsy
surgeon from the dead body of deceased could have been fired by seized gun and various holes found on various clothes of the deceased could be
made by pellets fired from seized gun. Therefore, the ballistic expert's report also provides corroboration to the evidence of above mentioned
prosecution witnesses. Hence, evidence of these prosecution's eye-witnesses supporting prosecution's case appears trustworthy. 27. K.D.Sonakiya
(PW-15) clearly deposed that photo copy of the FIR (Ex.P/3) was sent to relating Magistrate on 28th June, 2002, which was received in relating Court
on 29th June, 2002. In last printed para of FIR, it is written in handwritten portion that FIR (Ex.P/3)'s copy was sent to relating ACJM Mehgaon.
Govind Singh (DW-1), resident of village Baraso, deposed on 11th May, 2004 that about two years ago Ramjilal was caught by Mehgaon Police on
1st May and at that time Ramjilal was having his licensed gun, but he deposed in cross-examination that appellant Lachchiram and Ramjilal are his
nephews being residents of same village, but he also deposed in cross-examination that when Ramjilal was taken by the police to Mehgaon, then
behind Ramjilal he had also gone to Mehgaon whereas according to the evidence of Investigating Officer K.D.Sonakiya (PW-15) and his prepared
arrest memo (Ex.P/6), Ramjilal was arrested on 3rd July, 2002 at 20=15 hrs from appellants' house situated in Rajesh Gali of town Mehgaon and
according to arrest memo (Ex.P/5) of appellant Lachchiram, he was arrested on 3rd July, 2002 at 19=00 hrs. with a muzzle loaded double barrel gun
at Mou road near to a canal. Hence, the evidence given by defence witness Govind Singh (DW-1) regarding seizure of gun of Ramjilal on 1st May,
2002 appears to be totally false and afterthought.
Before the trial Court appellant Lachchiram @ Laxminarayan under his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC did not take specific defence
of plea of alibi, though he expressed his residence at village Baraso District Bhind, but it was even not suggested in cross-examination to complainant
Subedar Singh and his family members that at the relevant time appellant Lachchiram was residing at village Baraso. Appellants Raju and Satish took
a plea of alibi. It is well settled that plea of alibi of any accused should be taken from preliminary stage of relating case but no such plea was clearly
put in cross-examination of complainant and other witnesses and even appellant Lachchiram did not take this plea in his above mentioned examination
specifically, though later on defence witnesses Ramvaran Singh Yadav (DW-2) and Lochandas (DW-3) were produced on behalf of the
appellants to substantiate their alleged plea of alibi. Ramvaran Singh Yadav (DW-2) deposed him to be a resident of village Jhingni, district Morena
whereas Lochandas (DW-3) deposed himself as a resident of village Jithaso of Police Station Baraso. Ramvaran Singh Yadav (DW-2) deposed that
in relation to a programme of his 'House Inauguration Ceremony' a religious programme of reading of Ramayan was organized by him on 28th June,
2002, which was attended by appellants Raju and Satish and appellants Raju and Satish had remained at their house from the morning of 28th June,
2002 till next morning of 29th June, 2002. Ramvaran Singh Yadav (DW-2) also deposed that appellant Laxminarayan @ Lachchiram is Pujari of Ram
Janki Temple and appellants Raju and Satish are Laxminarayan's sons. In cross-examination Ramvaran deposed that the appellants lived in village
Baraso, but in crossexamination he expressed his ignorance about the fact that appellants are residing at town Mehgaon or not. No any suggestion
was given to any prosecution witness regarding appellants Raju and Satish's presence on the date of incident at village Jhingni, hence the evidence
given by Ramvaran Singh (DW-2) clearly appears to be afterthought and unbelievable.
Lochan Das (DW-3), resident of village Jithaso, deposed that he knew appellant Lachchiram because Lachchiram was staying every night at his
temple and on every next morning Lachchiramm left his temple for his occupation of begging and in the evening Lachchiram returned to his temple
with flour received in the day time in begging. Lochandas deposed in cross-examination that according to his knowledge Lachchiram does not
reside or stay at Ram Janki Temple, whereas other defence witness Ramvaran Singh (DW-2) clearly deposed that appellant Lachchiramm is Pujari of
Ram Janki Temple. Lochandas deposed that he is Pujari of temple situated in village Jithaso, which is about 1015 Kms. away from Mehgaon. No any
suggestion in cross-examination to any prosecution witness was given by defence counsel that every night appellant Lachchiram was residing at a
temple situated in village Jithaso. Therefore, it is clear that the evidence given by Lochandas (DW-3) was also totally afterthought and unbelievable
and we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any error in not placing reliance on such afterthought and imaginary defence
plea.
In the light of above referred citations, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court had properly and legally appreciated and analyzed the
evidence produced before it and did not commit any error in convicting each appellant for the relating offences. The sentences awarded by the trial
Court to each appellant in relation to relating offences do not appear harsh and unbalanced. Appellants' present appeal appears to be totally meritless.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed and each appellant's conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court is
affirmed. The appellant No.1-Lachchiram is in jail. Let the result of this appeal be intimated to appellant No.1Lachchiram through relating Jail
Superintendent. The Appellants No.2, 3 and 4 are on bail after suspending their jail sentence. They are directed to immediately surrender before the
trial Court without any delay so that each appellant may be sent to jail for execution of remaining part of their jail sentence.
 A copy of the judgment along with the record be immediately sent back to the trial Court for information and compliance.