Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Although this case has been listed on the second bail application of Ram Lal, but with the consent of both the parties this appeal is being decided finally.

2. The appellants, Ram Lal and Bhuvan, are aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.6.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the learned Judge has convicted both the appellants for offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. For the former offence, the learned Judge has sentenced them to one month of simple imprisonment; for the latter offence the learned Judge has sentenced them to life imprisonment and has imposed them with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and has further directed them to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that on 15.04.2008, Ghanshyam (P.W.5) submitted an oral information to the police at the Pratapgarh Hospital, wherein he claimed that in the day time he had gone to village Jathiyakher. In the evening around 6:00 PM he had gone to village Mowai. Around 7:30 PM, he and Suresh were going on a motorcycle from village Mowai to village Diwala. While they were going to Diwala, one Dinesh was going on a bicycle in front of them. As soon as they turned on the road towards Diwala, Bhuvan and Ram Lal (the appellants), suddenly came on the road and stopped them. Both of them were carrying lathi (bamboo sticks) in their hands. According to him, he was driving the motorcycle and Suresh was sitting as a pillion rider. The moment he saw the appellants, he jumped from the motorcycle and ran away. Bhuvan hit Suresh on his head with the lathi, thereby, grievously injuring him. He further claimed that since he was scared, he ran away. Although he raised some hue and cry, but nobody came to their rescue. Dinesh, who was going on bicycle, was also hit by the appellants. Subsequently, Satyanarayan called Suresh's brother, Gopal, on the phone. Gopal and Satyanarayan took Suresh, on the motorcycle, to the Pratapgarh Hospital. He further claimed that four to five months ago, he and Bhuvan had fought with each other. Ever since then, Bhuvan had an animosity against him. It is due to this animosity that they were attacked and Suresh was seriously injured. On the basis of this oral information, a formal FIR, FIR No.92/2008 (Ex.P.16), was chalked out for offences under Section 341, 323, 307/34 IPC. However, after four days i.e. on 18.04.2008, Suresh expired. With his death, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for offences under Section 341, 302/34 IPC.

4. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-three documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it did submit twenty-three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. Kaluram Bhati, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is suspect. Secondly, Ghanshyam (P.W.5) admitted the fact that there is animosity between him and the appellants. Therefore, he an inimicable witness. Hence, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, if the testimony of Ghanshyam (P.W.5) is to be believed, then the animosity was between him and Bhuvan. However, Bhuvan is said to have assaulted Suresh on his head with a lathi. But, there is no motive for Bhuvan to have assaulted Suresh, instead of chasing Ghanshyam. Fourthly, according to the witnesses, the road which turned from Mowai towards village Diwala was a rough one. The possibility that the motorcycle slipped thereby causing injury to Suresh on his head cannot be ruled out. Lastly, even if the prosecution case were taken to be tru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document