Sri Pankaj Purohit v. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal

first information report lodged by Rajendra which shows that Dham Singh, P.W.3 was a labrourer of his father Ram Lal. The presence of Dham Singh appears to be doubtful at the place of the occurrence. 20- The testimony of P.W. 4, Shyam Lal shows that he was working as a mason at the place of the occurrence. This witness has deposed that on the day of the incident the accused person armed with weapons came at the spot and threatened him to leave the place. This witness has stated that the accused started pelting stones on him and another labourer, hence he left the place. Thus it is clear that as far as the factum of dacoity is concerned, the same does not find corroboration by the statement of the witness. 21- Now coming on the factum of dacoity, the solitary statement or Ram Lal is there. The factum of dacoity cannot be established on the solitary testimony of P.W. 2 and there is every possibility that this injured witness has simply exaggerated the case with a view to implicate the accused persons in more serious crime than what they had committed. The complainant of this case Rajendra Singh has not been produced by the prosecution. So far as the occurrence of Marpit is concerned, P.W. 4, Shyam Lal who was working as mason at the spot has supported the version of Ram Lal, P.W.2. 22- Learned counsel for the appellants has invited my attention towards the injuries caused to Bundi Lal, Mahesha and Gaunu accused persons and submitted that the accused persons in their self-defence had caused these injuries to the complainant side. But I do not find any force in this argument, as there is no explanation absolutely from the side of the accused persons that how the injuries on the persons of Ram Lal P.W. 2 and his sons, referred by the prosecution, were caused. On the other side P.W. 2, Ram Lal has admitted in his deposition that the complainant side in their self- defence committed Marpit with the accused person s which resulted the injuries on their person. 23- In view of the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the production had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant U/Ss 147, and 323/149 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court does not require any interference. 24- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 25- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded y the trail court, is hereby confirmed. 26- Let the record of the court below be returned back so that the proceedings realize the fine imposed against accused/appellants by the trial court, may be initiated against them. Dated: July 19, 2006 ISB (B.C. Kandpal, J.)