Nanu Ram @ Bapu vs State Of Rajasthan

The accused appellant Nanu Ram @ Bapu stands convicted and sentenced as below by judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, Camp Badisadri in Sessions Case No.59/2010:-

Offence u/s.

Sentence

Fine

Fine Default Sentence

302 I.P.C.

Life Imprisonment

Rs.1000/-

1 year R.I.

307 I.P.C.

7 years R.I.

Rs.1000/-

1 year R.I.

324 I.P.C.

2 years R.I.

Rs.500/-

3 months R.I.

459 I.P.C.

5 years R.I.

Rs.1000/-

6 months R.I.

4/25 Arms Act

1 years R.I.

Rs.500/-

3 months R.I.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences and being an indigent person, the appellant forwarded this appeal from jail.

Shri Manoj Pareek Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the accused appellant in this appeal.

Shri Manoj Pareek urges that there is no evidence worth the name on the record to establish the guilt of the appellant. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The statements of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Bapu Singh, P.W.3 Dhan singh, P.W.4 Parthe Singh, P.W.7 Vardi Singh are self contradictory and vacillating. Their evidence is not corroborated by the testimony of the Medical Officer P.W.11 Dr.Gyanmal Sankhla and as such, the accused appellant is entitled to an acquittal. Shri Pareek craved acceptance of the appeal on these grounds.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He submitted that the F.I.R. Ex.P1 was lodged by Dhan Singh at the Police Station Barisadri on 20.7.2010 wherein, complete details of the incident are set out. There is a clear allegation that in the dead of the night, the appellant came around and started assaulting his father Shri Varde Singh by a sword. When the first informant shouted, the accused tried to run away. His father's neck was cut by a sword blow and he succumbed to the injury instantaneously. Thereafter, Nanu Singh tried to enter into the house of Shankar Singh. When he did not succeed, the accused assaulted Nanu Singh's uncle, the first informant by a sword due to which he too expired. The appellant also assaulted Vardi Singh son of Narayan Singh Rawat and inflicted him sword injuries upon him. He further submits that the allegations levelled by the first informant in the F.I.R. were duly corroborated and reaffirmed in the depositions of P.W.1 Bapu Singh, P.W.,l 3 Dhan Singh (first informant), P.W.4 Parthe Singh, P.W.7 Vardi Singh (injured witness), P.W.8 Shankar Singh and the medical evidence as testified by Dr.Gyanmal Sankhla Medical Jurist P.W.11, who opined that the cause of death of both of two deceased persons i.e. Shri Nanu Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh and Shri Varde Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh was sharp weapon injuries. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the trial court was absolutely justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as above by the impugned judgment which as per him does not warrant any interference whatsoever.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence.

We have reappreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses threadbare and find that there is no such significant contradiction or omission in the statements of the eye-witnesses which can dislodge their testimony. As stated above, P.W.1 Bapu Singh, P.W.3 Dhan singh, P.W.4 Parthe Singh, P.W.7 Vardi Singh clearly alleged that they saw the accused inflicting injuries upon the two deceased. Vardi Singh was himself assaulted by the accused appellant and was caused injuries and thus, he being an injured eye witness can be the person to narrate the sequence of events. He is the most reliable witness on whose sole testimony, the guilt of the accused can be reaffirmed. The clinching and convincing depositions of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Officer P.W.11 who testified that the injuries noticed on the bodies of the two deceased in the post mortem reports Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 were caused by a sharp weapon.

In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused by leading clinching, cogent and convincing evidence and there is no reason to cast a doubt thereupon. It is our firm view that the trial court was perfectly justified in placing reliance on the prosecution evidence and convicting the appellant as above.

The impugned judgment dated 31.8.2012 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting exercise of the powers of this Court under appellate jurisdiction so as to interfere therein.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed as such.