Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1253 (RAJ)

Anop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2000-10-12

N.N.MATHUR, S.K.GARG

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000./- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentence to six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. The briefly stated prosecution case is that police constable Jai Singh submitted written First Information Report exhibit P/1 at police station Pratapnagar, Bhilwara on 1.12.1993 stating inter alia that he alongwith Radhpshyam and Shokat Khan had gone in search of tempo driver Laxman Singh and his companion as they were required in FIR No. 308/93. He found them sitting in the Hotel known as Guruji ki hotel. The tempo of Laxman Singh bearing No. RJH-2302 was parked outside the hotel. He asked Laxman Singh to come out. Laxman Singh, Anop Singh and one of his companion came out abusing the constables and tried to escape. However, he alongwith other constable surrounded them on which the Laxman Singh gave blow to constable Radheshyam. Appellant Anop Singh caused injury to Jai Singh by a pointed sharp edge weapon. On account of the injury there was bleeding from the chin. Constable Radheshyam and Shokat Khan accosted appellant Anop Singh. It is alleged that Anop Singh gave a call of his companies Bherulal and Laxman Singh Radheshyam and Shokat Khan grappled with the appellant. It is further alleged the Anop Singh inflicted injury on the neck of constable Radheshyam by the same sharp edged weapon. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Secs. 307, 353B, 332 IPC and proceeded the investigation. Radheshyam was taken to the hospital, where he died on 2.12.1993. Thus offence under Section 302 IPC was added Police prepared the inquest and send the dead body for postmortem. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the appellant and two others for the offence under Secs. 302, 307, 353, 332 and 333 read with 34 IPC. 3. The appellant denied the charge levelled against him. The prosecution in support of his case examined 26 witnesses. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the appellant and two others for the offence under Secs. 302, 307, 353, 332 and 333 read with 34 IPC. 3. The appellant denied the charge levelled against him. The prosecution in support of his case examined 26 witnesses. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution witnesses appearing against him. The Trial Judge, acquitted Laxman Singh and Bherulal, however, convicted and sentenced Anop Singh as noticed above. 4. The main contention of Shri Doongar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no material on record to show that the appellant and his associates were required to be arrested in a cognizable offence. He has also submitted that after the sunset the accused persons could not have been arrested without warrant. He also submitted that this incident in which the accused persons were sought to be arrested the appellant rightly acted in right of private defence, In the alternate, it is submitted that there is single injury and that too by a patti i.e. to say blade. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to case murder of Radheshyam. 5. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution and considered the rival contentions. PW/24 Dr. Avdhesh has stated that he conducted the postmortem of dead body of. Radheshyam and found the injuries: " Ckgkz ijh{k.k %& 1- xnZu ds ck;ha rjQ ck;sa esUMhcy ds ,d iksbZUV nks bap uhps ,d bap x iksbUV ikap bap x pkj bap dk V~kUlolZ vkscyhxyh bUlkbZTM ow.M FkkA 'kY; fpfdRlk djus ij %& pksV la[;k ,d bap uhps ,d iksbZUV ikap bap x iksbZUV ikap bap x elYl Mhi] bUlkbZTM ow.M FkkA 2- nksuksa iSjksa esa nksuksa V[kuksa ds tksM+ ds nks bap mij iksbUV lkr bap dk fouh lsDlu ds fu'kkukr FksA vkUrfjd ijh{k.k %& 1- xnZu ds ck;ha rjQ dh djksV~hM /keuh o bUVjuy tqxyosu o budh czUost dVh gqbZ FkhA fny [kkyh FkkA ckdh lHkh vksjxUl dUtsLVsM FksA cM+h vkarksa esa dqN rknkn esa v/;kidk HkksT; iznkFkZ FkkA " He has proved the post mortem report (Exhibit- P/40). In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to cutting down of major vessels and its branches of left side of neck. Thus it is proved that Radheshyam died due to homicidal death. 6. In his opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to cutting down of major vessels and its branches of left side of neck. Thus it is proved that Radheshyam died due to homicidal death. 6. The prosecution has examined PW/1 Shokat Khan, PW/2 Jai Singh and PW/3 Vijay Kumar to establish the charges against the appellant. PW/1 Shokat khan was a driver on the jeep of the Superintendent of police, Bhilwara. He stated that on 1.12.1993 in the night at about 9 PM he went to the house of his relative PW/6 Ahsaan Mohd. A complaint was made by him to the effect that while he was moving in industrial area of Bhilwara with his tempo, two persons stopped the tempo and took quarrel with him. He alongwith Ahsaan Modh. went to the police station for lodging the First Information Report. From the police station he went in the search of the accused Laxman Singh and the appellant Anop Singh. He was accompanied with two police constables namely Jai Singh and deceased Radheshyam. When they reached near the hotel known as 'Guruji Ki hotel it was found that both the accused persons were sitting in the hotel and the tempo of the Laxman Singh was parked outside. Constable Jai Singh called Laxman Singh out of the hotel on which three accused persons namely Anop Singh, Laxman Singh and Bheru Lal came out in a drunken condition. They grappled with Jai Singh. Appellant Anop Singh caused injury on the neck of Radheshyam by a blade. He was immediately removed to the hospital in the tempo of Ahsaan Modh. Anop Singh and Laxman Singh were caught and taken to the police station. In the way, Anop Singh escaped. He also stated that Radheshyam died in the hospital. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW/2 Jai Singh was a police constable at the police station Pratapnagar, Bhilwara. He has stated that on 1.12.1993 at about 10.45 PM Ahsaan Mohd. lodged a First Information Report. The S.H.O. send him alongwith the constable Radheshyam to bring Laxman Singh and others. He has also stated that when they reached near the hotel known as 'Guruji Ki Hotel', they found the tempo of Laxman Singh parked outside the hotel. All the three accused were sitting in the hotel. lodged a First Information Report. The S.H.O. send him alongwith the constable Radheshyam to bring Laxman Singh and others. He has also stated that when they reached near the hotel known as 'Guruji Ki Hotel', they found the tempo of Laxman Singh parked outside the hotel. All the three accused were sitting in the hotel. He also stated that Anop Singh caused injury to Radheshyam by some sharp edged weapon. He also stated that they tried to catch-hold the accused persons but they could not succeed. He also stated that Anop Singh by a sharp edged weapon cause injury on the neck of Radheshyam. In the tempo of Ahsaan Mohd. Radheshyam was taken to the hospital. PW/6 Ahsaan Mohd. has also stated almost in the same manner. Nothing has been elicited from both the witnesses to discredit this witness. The testimony of the witnesses finds corroboration from the First Information Report and the medical evidence. Thus, in our opinion, the Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of causing an injury on the neck of the deceased Radheshyam by a sharp edged weapon. 7. The next question arises for consideration is as to what offence has been committed by the appellant. The incident has taken place all of a sudden. The weapon of offence is said to be a blade picked up from the spot. It is significant to notice that the said blade has not been produced. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to commit murder on intended to cause such body injury which could have cause death in ordinary course of nature. However, the act of the appellant can be clothed with the knowledge that his act may cause death of Radheshyam. In these circumstances, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. 8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara dated 22.9.1997 is modified. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to 304 Part II IPC. The appellant is in jail since December, 1993. Thus, he is awarded the sentence for the period he has already undergone. The conviction under Section 324 IPC is maintained. The appellant has undergone the sentence, thus, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal Partly allowed. *******