Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. This leaves us with the testimony of Roshan Lal (PW-9), Arjun Lal (PW-10) and Manjit Singh (PW-12). Out of these Roshan Lal (PW-9) and Arjun Lal (PW-10) have not been believed by the trial Court. The statement of Manjit Singh (PW-12), who was declared hostile was partially believed by the trial Court.

22. Roshan Lal (PW-9) deposed in his examination-in-chief that he had reached Del vada at about 8.45 A.M. and was taking tea in a Tea Shop there, witness Artun lal (PW-10) came from the direction of Kailashpuri. Roshan Lal stopped him and asked him, where he was going. He replied that he was going to Kelva. Then, Roshan Lal requested him to take him along as he had to go to Rajnagar. They started on the Scooter. Near Village -Nagdia, deceased Sunder lal came in the Jeep from the direction of Kailashpuri and overtook the Scooter on which the witnesses were riding. The Jeep was being driven by Ranjeet Singh Jhala and ten persons were occuping it. When they reached Nathdwara, they found that jeep was standing there and they went ahead on the Scooter. Again, near a culvert ahead of Nathdwara, the Jeep over-took them when they were 150 feet away from River -Khari, they saw a dumper coming from the direction of Rajsamand. The Jeep was on its left side. The dumper was in a very high speed. There was no obstacle on the road but the dumper came towards its right side and dashed against the Jeep which was going on left side. Jeep fell into a pit and the dumper turned turtle. Accused Vijay Singh got down from the dumper. He had a gun in his hand. Then accused jalam Singh, Kalyan Singh, Kishan Singh, Khem Singh and Vijay Ram Kumar got down from the Jeep. Vijay Singh was looking at the Jeep which had overturned. A white Jeep then arrived from the direction of Rajsamand and stopped near the dumper. Accused Bhanwar Singh got down from it. He lifted Jalam Singh who seemed to have been injured and put him in the Jeep. There was one more person in the Jeep whose name was not known to the witness. Then all the accused persons who had alighted from the dumper boarded the Jeep and went towards Udaipur. According to the witness, they did not go nearer as they were afraid that they themselves may not be killed. Roshan Lal and Arjun Lal turned their back towards it out of fear. The witness further deposed that a man sitting in the dumper on his back side of the body was thrown out due to the impact of the collision and fell down. The witness did not know him. the witness went away towards Nathdwara. Arjun Lal sent a message to Rama and then they returned to the spot at about 1.00 P.M. Eleven perons were dead on the spot but bodies of Sunder Lal, Prakash and one more deceased were not there on the spot. Eight dead bodies were on the spot. In the cross-examiantion, this witness had admitted that after witnessing collision, they came back to Nathwara but did not inform the Police there, though the Police Station is on the way. The witness also admitted that when they reached the spot second ' time, Policemen were present on the spot but this witness and Arjun Lal did not tell the Police that they had seen the collision. They also did not tell any one else that they had seen the collision, though several persons of their village were standing there on the spot. He also admitted that his statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Police five to seven days after the incident. He also admitted that all the accused persons got out of the dumper from the driver side door and Vijay Singh had the gun in his hand. He had not gone back to fetch the gun from the dumper after having come out from the dumper. When confronted with the case diary statement Ex. D/l, the witness stated that he had not told the Polcie that Vijay Singh had ome out of the dumper first and then again went back to take out the gun. He also denied having stated before the Police that accused Bhanwar Singh had taken all the other accused persons in the white Jeep towards Kankroli.

27. Thus none of the eye witnesses was found to be trust-worthy by the trial Court as an eye witness of the dumper being intentionally dashed against the Jeep by Vijay Singh.

28. Let us now turn to the evidence as to other circumstances of the case.

29. The prosecution has come up with the story that at about 10.00 A.M. Vijay Singh went in the dumper to the Court at Rajsamand, enquired about deceased Sunder Lal and when he found that deceased Sunder Lal and party had not reached there, took the 'dumper' in which other accused persons were sitting towards Udaipur with the intention of dashing the 'dumper' against the Jeep in which Sunder Lal and others were likely to come from Udaipur with the intention to cause their death. Witnesess have been examined to prove the arrival of the accused persons in the Court at Rajsamand and their enquiring about deceased Sunder Lal and party and after having known that deceased Sunder Lai had not arrived in the Court, going towards Udaipur with the intention of dashing the dumper against their Jeep. Manjeet Singh (PW-12), whose testimony has already been discussed above and who was the regular driver of the dumper has deposed that he was sent to Raj samand with dumper by accused Vijay Singh for bringing Marble. He and accused Vijay Singh went in front of Rajnagar Tehsil at about 10.00 A.M., then they again went back towards Udaipur and at that time, he himself, accused Vijay Singh and Jalam Singh were only there in the dumper and no other accused was there. He also deposed that accused Vijay Singh was driving the vehicle. Radhey Shyam (PW-16), deposed that on July 11, 1991 he had gone to Sessions Court, Rajsamand at 10.00 or 10.30 A.M. He was standing by the pan shop outside the Court and saw a dumper going towards Jal Chakki. It was being driven by Vijay Singh and he had seen Jalam Singh getting in the dumper and that there were four or five other persons in the 'dumper' who were not known to him. He could not say whether these persons had gone inside the Court premises or not. He was deelared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He denied having made a statement to the Police about the accused persons enquring about Sunder Lal going to the Public Prosecutor's Office and arrival of Bhanwar Singh there. He further admitted that the Jeep which was involved in the collision was often being driven by Sunder lal and he used to come to Nathdwara in that Jeep. Chunni Lal (PW-17) was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He admitted having come to Rajasamand Sessions Court on July 10, 1991, had not seen any one from both the parties i.e. party of deceased Sunder Lal and party of the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he admitted to have given statement to Police but added that Police had beaten him up and he was caught ant taken away by them. He was confronted with his case diary statement but nothing substantially could come out of his cross examination.

30. Umesh Chandra (PW-23) a Constable was posted in a Public Prosecutor's Office at Rajsamand during the relevant time. He deposed that on July 10,1991 he was posted at the Public Prosecutor's Office in Rajsamand. On that day, the case State v. Sunder Lal and others was posted for hearing but the learned Sessions Judge was on leave. The case was fixed for 11-7-1991 and 12-7-1991 also for prosecution evidence. He further deposed that on July 11, 1991 when he was sitting at about 10.00 A.M. in the Public Prosecutor's Office, four persons came in the Office whose names were not known to him. They asked him whether the accused Sunder Lal and others would come on the date or not, On which he replied that he did not know, since these persons were witnesses in the case, he asked them to read their case diary statements but they did not pay any heed and went away. He further deposed that he did not know, the poersons also and would not be able to identify them. Then he heard in he evening about the accident and death of Sunder Lal and others. The witness though he was a Constable in the service of the State Police was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He denied having given statement to the Police that on July 11, 1991, he was standing outside the Court and that he had met accused Vijay Singh, Jalam Singh, Kalyan Singh, Khem Singh, Kishan Singh and Vaje Ram out side the Court and that he knew them and had named them. He also deposed that he had not told the Police that these accused persons had enquired about Sunder Lal. He also denied having told the Police that these accused persons were taken by him to the Public prosecutor's Office and made them read their case diary statements. He also denied that he had given the statement to the Police that these accused persons, replied to him on his asking then to read their case diary statements, that what is there to be read in the statment, they will get Sunder Lal read the statment on that day Obviously this witness is of no help to the prosecution case.

41. Chunni Lal (PW-17) has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution.

42. Nand Lal (PW-19) is the borther of deceased Sunder Lal. He had lost three brothers in the collision. He deposed that one or one and a half years prior to his death Sunder Lal had purchased a land in Village -Munwas which accused Bhanwar Singh, Kishan Singh, Kalyan Singh wanted to purchase. Deceased Sunder Lal wanted to put a boundary wall on the land and for that purpose had collected stones there. Accused Bhanwar Singh removed the stones from that place and put his own stones there. The enmity started between the parties because of this. He further deposed that on May 17, 1990, accused Bhanwar Singh, Jalam Singh, Vijay Singh, Anandi Lal, Yogesh, Kalu Sanadhya and others entered the house of deceased Sunder Lal armed with weapons and started fighting with Sunder Lal. Sunder Lal had a revolver which he fired in self defence. Kalu Sanadhya was hit in this fire. A case was registered by the Police against Sunder Lal's party and this witness was one of the accused persons. This case was going on in Sessions Court Rajsamand and was fixed on July 10,1991. The witness had not come on that day as he was in Bombay. He further deposed that in the evening of July 10, 1991, deceased Sunder Lal telephoned him and informed him in Bombay that when he had gone to Rajsamand for the date of hearing, accused persons encircled him and told him that they will finish him within a day or two. He also proved certain documents showing the pendency of a case between the parties in the Sessions Court, Rajsamand. These documents were Ex.P/61 toEx.P/ 71. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on information being received on July 10, 1991 from Sunder Lal about the threat given to him, he did not adivse him to report the matter to the Police but had only advised him to be cautious.