Point of Law : It is evident that all accused-appellants were involved in commission of offence and have rightly been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with aid of Section 149 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhandari, J

1. Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.08.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota whereby appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 341 IPC. For under Section 302 IPC to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Under Section 147 IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. Under Section 148 IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. Under Section 341 IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the incident took place on 30.09.2012 at 9:45 -10:00 pm. On 01.10.2012 at 07.30 am, PW-11 (Ashok Kumar) submitted a written report at Government Hospital, Jhalawar. Police on the basis of this information registered the case under Sections 147, 341, 302/149 IPC against the appellants and other co-accused and arrested the accused appellants. Police after due investigation, submitted (challan against the accused appellants and other co-accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302/149 IPC. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants and other co-accused under Sections 147/148, 341 and 302 or 302/149 IPC. Appellants denied the charges, on which prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and 51 documents were exhibited. Accused-appellants were examined under section 313 CrPC wherein they denied the prosecution case. On behalf of defence, one witness – DW-1 Gaurav Rai was examined and 3 documents were exhibited. Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused appellants and other co-accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302/149 of IPC. Aggrieved by which, present appeals have been filed.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that there is delay of about ten hours in lodging of FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution, even though police station was at a distance of mere 150 meters from the place of occurrence. It is also contended that there is delay of more than one day in the receipt of FIR by the Magistrate, which further creates a doubt on the authenticity of FIR. It is further contended that the written report (EX.P-16) has been received at 07:30 am on 01.10.2012. The FIR was registered at 01.30 pm on the same day but, the copy of FIR was received by the Magistrate at 03.00 pm on 02.10.2012 which creates a doubt on the authenticity of the FIR. It is also contended that even though on the date of occurrence, there was a Kavi Sammellan in the market place near the alleged place of occurrence wherein many people were present yet none of them were produced as independent witnesses.

4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant-Jaheer that PW-7 (Parwez Alam) has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that Jaheer was not involved in the incident and he was not a member of the unlawful assembly. He was only an employee in the shop of Bherulal Tailor. It is also contended that it is not established that the shirt which was recovered at the instance of Jaheer belonged to Jaheer as he was not asked to wear the same. It is also contended that the scissor is said to have been recovered from Jaheer having human blood but the blood group was inconclusive.

5. It is contended by counsel for the appellant-Tarun that no recovery has been effected from Tarun. There is no overt act assigned to him. It is also contended that in the FIR, name of four persons-Bherulal, Ramlal, Pooran and Jaheer is mentioned. Name of Tarun is not mentioned in the FIR. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. It is contended by counsel for the appellant-Ram Lal that there is no allegation against Ram Lal of causing injury with a hockey stick, whereas a hockey stick is said to have been recovered at his instance. At t