Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 670 (RAJ)

Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2000-05-24

D.N.JOSHI, N.N.MATHUR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.1.1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali convicting the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted for offence under sections 25(A) & 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on 29.4.1979 on the auspicious occasion of Akshay Tratiya, the marriage of 3 daughters of Dhanna Ram, the brother of the accused-Pokar Ram, were performed in village Bera Ki Dhani. The bridgeroom parties had arrived from the different villages namely Leeliya, Falka and Nayagaon. On the evening of 1.5.1979 all had assembled to give send off to the different marriage parties. Deceased Shankar Ram was the elder member of the bridegroom party of village Leeliya. He parked the tractor in front of the house of Dhanna Ram and occupied the driver seat. Some of the members of bridegroom party were sitting in the trolly attached to the tractor and some were going to sit in it. At the time, accused-Pokar Ram approached to Shanker Ram and advised him to give custody tips to Drummer (Dholi) and Cobbler (Sargara) etc. Deceased-Shankar Ram replied that bridegroom party was not liable to pay such sort of tips. This led to oral altercation between deceased and accused-Pokar Ram. Accused-Pokar Ram giving threat entered in the house and soon returned with a gun and fired aiming at Shankar Ram. The pellet hit on the right side of the neck of Shanker Ram, on account of which he fell down. While accused was trying to escape from the place of incident, PW 1 Nathu Singh chased him, but accused-Shanker Ram threatened him to face the same consequence if he followed him. Shanker Ram was immediately taken in the trolley to the hospital at Merta City for treatment. He succumbed to the injury on the way. On the next day, PW 5 Gokal Ram lodged the First Information keport Ex. P/3 at 5.30 a.m. at Police Station, Kalu. On this information, police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. Shanker Ram was immediately taken in the trolley to the hospital at Merta City for treatment. He succumbed to the injury on the way. On the next day, PW 5 Gokal Ram lodged the First Information keport Ex. P/3 at 5.30 a.m. at Police Station, Kalu. On this information, police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 15 witnesses. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. It was also stated that after the marriage was performed, to enjoy the occasion, guns were fired and at that time accidently a pellet coming out of some gun might have struck to the deceased-Shanker Ram. He also stated that a false case has been foisted at the instance of Gokal Ram as he had not obliged by accepting the proposal for the marriage of his daughter with his son. In support of the defence 11 witnesses were examined. The trial Court analysing the evidence found the charge of murder proved against the appellant. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 4. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Pubic Prosecutor. We have scanned the prosecution evidence carefully. 5. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. M.L. Garg that the four eye-witnesses namely PW 1 Nathu Singh, PW 2 Sukhdevo, PW 3 Amra Ram and PW 5 Gokal Ram are not reliable witnesses. He has pointed out certain infirmities in their statements. It is also argued that the prosecution has to produced the independent witnesses. In alternate, it is submitted that the incident took place all of sudden and as such at the most, it is a case of homicidal death not amounting to murder punishable under section 304(11) IPC. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court.We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 6. PW 2 Dr. L.R.C. Bhandari has stated that he has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased-Shanker Ram on 2.5.1979 and noticed the following injuries:- 1. Punctured wound - one 1/2" x 1/4" on Rt. 6. PW 2 Dr. L.R.C. Bhandari has stated that he has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased-Shanker Ram on 2.5.1979 and noticed the following injuries:- 1. Punctured wound - one 1/2" x 1/4" on Rt. side of neck 3" above Rt. collar bone and of wound is slightly inside. On dissection of the abdomen wound there was rupture of Rt. external carotid parting at the horizontal level of wound and also there was laceration of Rt. external juglar ven. The small muscles of neck Rt. side were also teared at place trachea at the level 1/2" below was also ruptured and clotted blood present around wound. On left side of neck there were also tearing of small muscles of neck and the wound was horizontal slightly downward, on left side. Carotid vessels was not ruptured. The probge was passed through entry of wound. It was traced about from Rt. to left horizontal. Slightly dowandard toward left side. But there was no exit of injury." He has proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/10. He also stated that in his opinion the cause of death was due to excessive hemorrhage and shock as a result of gun shot injury on the neck. 7. PW 1 Nathu Singh has stated that he had gone to attend the marriage of Parsa, son of Goma, which was performed in village Bera Ki Dhani. All had assembled to give send off to the different marriage parties. Deceased-Shanker Ram had parked the tractor in front of the house of Dhanna Ram. PW 5 Gokul Ram, PW 2 Sukhdeo, PW 3 Amraram and Bhura Ram etc. were sitting in the tractor. Deceased Shanker Ram had occupied the driving seat. At that time, accused-Pokar Ram asked that he should pay the customary tips to the barber and drummer. Deceased-Shanker Lal replied saying that the persons of the bridegroom were not obliged to pay the tips. Pokar Ram went to his house and returned with a gun and fired at Shanker Lal. The gun shot hit Shanker Lal on his neck, on account of which he fell down. He tried to chase the accused, but he threatened him to face the same consequence if he try to come near. Shanker Lal was immediately laid in the tractor and proceeded towards the hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries in the way. The gun shot hit Shanker Lal on his neck, on account of which he fell down. He tried to chase the accused, but he threatened him to face the same consequence if he try to come near. Shanker Lal was immediately laid in the tractor and proceeded towards the hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries in the way. On the next day, PW 5 Gokal Ram lodged the first information report. There is long cross-examination, but nothing has been elicited to dis-credit the testimony of this witness. 8. PW 2 Sukhdeo and PW 3 Amra have almost stated in the line of PW 1 Nathu Singh. 9. PW 5 Gokal Ram has also stated on the same line. He has stated that he went to the Police Station, Kalu and lodged the FIR. He has also proved the police memos. Nothing has been pointed out to discredit the testimony of these four eye-witnesses. The presence of the witnesses on the spot is natural as they were members of the marriage party. There is absolutely no reason for them to give false evidence. The testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. In our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly placed the reliance on the testimony of these eye-witnesses. The gun has been recovered at the instance of the accused. The Ballistic Expert PW 13 Prem Sagar has opined that it was in serviceable condition. Prem Sagar has also stated that the pellet recovered from the body of the deceased could have been fired from the gun recovered from the accused. This aspect of the case has not been seriously disputed by the appellant. In view of this, in our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under sections 25 & 26 of the Arms Act. 10. Turning to the point of nature of offence, it is evident that the incident has taken place all of sudden. There was no previous enmity. The appellant has also not acted in a cruel manner. Thus, in our view, the learned trial Jduge has committed error in convicting the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC deserves to be converted into Section 304(11) IPC. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor on the point of sentence. Thus, in our view, the learned trial Jduge has committed error in convicting the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC deserves to be converted into Section 304(11) IPC. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor on the point of sentence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused has already undergone a sentence of two years. It is also submitted that it would not be just and proper to send him to jail after more than 18 years. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it would be appropriate in the facts of the case if the compensation is awarded to the widow of the deceased-Shanker Ram in accordance with the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Thus, on 4.4.2000 we directed the SHO, Police Station, Kalu to enquire the financial conditions of the accused as well as the complainant party. The SHO had submitted a report dated 12.4.2000 addressed to the Public Prosecutor. The same has been taken on record. It is reported that the widow of Shanker Ram, namely Supiyari Devi aged 45 years is living with her son Ramdeo, aged 25 years and grand son Suresh, aged 2 years. It is reported that their financial condition is not good. The financial condition of the accused is reported to be good. He has not gone son and two daughters. He is in possession of 60 big has of land. The widow has also appeared before us and she has been paid the travel charges as per the directions of this Court. 12. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity of offence, we are of the view that it is a fit case, in which the widow be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant under the instructions of his client appellant-Pokar Ram has agreed to pay the compensation. On 22.5.2000 the case was adjourned for today. Today, Mr. Garg has produced a bank draft of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Mst. Supiyari Devi, widow of the deceased-Shanke Lal. 13. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is converted into 304(11) 1PC. On 22.5.2000 the case was adjourned for today. Today, Mr. Garg has produced a bank draft of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of Mst. Supiyari Devi, widow of the deceased-Shanke Lal. 13. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is converted into 304(11) 1PC. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. He shall also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- under the provisions of Section 357(3) & (4) Cr.P.C. The bank draft bearing No. OL/ABD/5 052218 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- of the State Bank of India, Jodhpur has been handed over to the counsel for the complainant Shri Bajrang Singh. The bail bonds executed by the appellant-Pokar Ram stands discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******