Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1361 (RAJ)

Bhawani Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

2002-08-02

F.C.BANSAL

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Bhawani Shankar, Badri Lal, Madan Lal, Mahendra Kumar, Dev Kishan, Tola Ram & Laxmi Narayan have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated January 31, 1985 passed by iearned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: 1. Badri Lal u/s. 326 IPC 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo 9 months imprisonment. u/s. 148 IPC 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 1 1/2 months imprisonment. u/s. 325/149 IPC 1 year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months' imprisonment. u/s. 324/149 IPC 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 6 months' imprisonment. u/s. 323 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 2 months, imprisonment. 2. Bhawani Shankar u/S. 456 IPC 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 1 1/2 months imprisonment. 3. Madan Lal, Mahendra Kumar, Laxmi Narayan, Dev Kishan Tola Ram each. u/S. 326/149 IPC 2 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo 6 months imprisonment. u/S. 148 IPC 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in and default to further undergo 1 1/2 months imprisonment. u/S. 325/149 IPC 1 year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo 3 months imprisonment. u/S. 324/149 IPC 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500,/-, in default to further undergo 6 months imprisonment. u/S. 323 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 2 months imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. 3. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge u/S 326 IPC against the appellant Badri Lal and the charge/S. 325 read with 149 IPC against the appellants Madan Lal, Mahendra Kumar, Laxmi Narayan, Dev Kishan and Tola Ram as no injured person had sustained any grievous injury by sharp weapon. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get acquittal from this charge. 4. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get acquittal from this charge. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and with his and learned Public Prosecutors assistance, perused the prosecution evidence. In the alleged incident Ramgopai, Jamna Lal, Ramesh and Radheyshyam were said to have sustained injuries. Injury Reports of these injured persons demonstrate that when medically examined, three injuries were found on the person of Ramgopai, out of which one injury was to sharp weapon and the rest were caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. Two simple injuries were found on the person of Ramesh Chandra, out of which one was of sharp weapon, five simple injuries of blunt weapon were found on the person of Radheyshyam. Learned trial Judge has found the appeiiant Badrilal guilty under Section 326 IPC and the appellants Madanlal, Mahendra Kumar, Laxmi Narayan, Dev Kishan and Tolaram guilty under Section 326 read with 149 IPC for causing grievous injuries with sharp weapon to Jamnalal. But the Injury Report Ex.D5 of Jamnalal demonstrates that on medical examination, three injuries were found on his person. After X-ray it was found that two injuries were grievous in nature. All the injuries found on the person of Jamnalal were of blunt weapon and none was caused by sharp weapon. Looking to this fact, I come to the conclusion that no charge under Section 326 IPC stands proved against the appellant Badrilal and the appellants Madanlal, Mahendra Kumar, Laxmi Narayan, Dev Kishan and Tolaram cold not be held guilty under Section 326 read with 149 IPC by the trial Court and they have been wrongly convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, they are entitled to be acquitted of this charge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, his only prayer is that as the incident took place on November 26, 1980. more than 21 years and 6 months have elapsed. Prior to the incident, no offence was committed by any of the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, his only prayer is that as the incident took place on November 26, 1980. more than 21 years and 6 months have elapsed. Prior to the incident, no offence was committed by any of the appellants. The appellants Bhawani Shankar, Madanlal, Badrilal, Mahendra Kumar, Dev Kishan, Tolaram and Laxmi Narayan are of one family and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code be set aside and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be extended to them. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer of learned counsel. Having considered the above submissions, evidence of the case and nature of the offence, I come to the conclusion that it is a fit case where benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 should be given to the appellants. 6. ur Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed. While setting aside the conviction and sentence, the appeiiant Badrilal is acquitted of the charge u/S 326 IPC and the appellants Madanlal, Mahendra Kumar, Dev Kishan, Laxmi Narayan and Tolaram are acquitted of the charge u/S. 326 read with 149 IPC. The conviction of all the appellants under other Sections of the IPC for which they have been sentenced, is hereby confirmed, but the sentence awarded to them is set aside. They may be released on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) with a surety in the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour during next 3 days and to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during this period. Three months time is given to the appellants to furnish personal and surety bonds in the trial Court, failing which their appeal except against conviction and sentence under Section 326 and 326/149 IPC, shall be treated as dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court stands modified/accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******