JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 22.02.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.02/89, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant – Roopa Ram S/o Ram Sukh (P.W.-9) resident of village Senani, District Nagaur gave an oral information on 25.04.1988 at 3:40 AM at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur stating therein that on 24.04.1988, at around 8:00 AM, he proceeded towards village Dhyawa for some domestic work from his house and Sipudi, Situdi, Sugnai, Mandki, his son Tejaram and grand-sons Mahadev & Sehdev were at his house. At around 11:00 AM, when he was coming towards village Senani from village Dhyawa, his grand sons Mahadev and Sehdev approached him and informed that his son Tejaram had been killed by Aidan and his family members. He immediately returned to his house, where his wife informed him that around 9:00 AM, when deceased – Tejaram proceeded towards the house of Bhaguram Kumhar, then Aidan and his family members attacked him in front of their house and brutally assaulted him, which resulted into his death. It is also stated by complainant Rooparam that his wife Sipudi as well as Situdi and Sugnai have witnessed the assault on deceased Tejaram.

3. On the basis of the said oral report, the police registered an FIR No.6/88 (Exhibit-P/2) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 IPC against seven persons, however, after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the respondents – Tilokaram, Ramchandra, Mohini and Gularam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. The trial court has framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.

4. To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the prosecution has produced as many as 14 witnesses and also got exhibited several documents. The accused respondents have produced 3 witnesses in defence and got exhibited 8 documents. The learned trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties and after analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence, acquitted the accused – respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges against the accused – respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant -State has argued that the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondents from the offences for which they were charged. It is submitted that the trial court has also erred in not relying on the testimony of complainant Rooparam (P.W.-9) and the other eye witnesses. It is further submitted that the prosecution produced cogent evidence to prove that the accused – respondents, armed with deadly weapons, had caused grievous injuries on the person of Tejaram, which resulted into his death. It is also argued that the prosecution has also proved that the accused – respondents, in furtherance of common intention, had wilfully caused injuries on the person of Tejaram. It is argued that the learned trial court has disbelieved the statements of the eye witnesses without giving any justifiable reason.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the trial court has erred in holding that there was delay in filing the FIR, though complainant – Rooparam (P.W.-9) has explained the delay in filing the FIR satisfactorily. It is also submitted that the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of complainant – Rooparam (P.W.-9) solely on the ground that he had lodged the FIR with delay. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the prosecution has proved the rec