Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 347 (RAJ)

Mangu v. State of Rajasthan [Chittorgarh]

2004-03-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 14.05.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Session Case No. 68/1985 whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, Chittorgarh (for short "the trial Court " hereinafter) found the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 324/34, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC and convicted them for the offences noticed above and sentenced to undergo 2-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC; under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo 1-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 400/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants for the offences under Sections 308 and 341 IPC and accordingly they were acquitted for the said offences. 2. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order impugned and also carefully scanned and scrutinised the evidence on record. 3. The accused appellants were put to trial for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341,308 and 323/34 IPC. The prosecution produced as many as 11 witnesses. The accused made statements under Sections 313 CrPC and denied the occurrence. In defence the accused appellants produced DW. 1 Rameshwar, DW. 2 Narain and DW. 3 Maina. 4. PW.1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra is the Medical Officer-in-charge who examined injured Pratap; Gopi, Lali and Chandi Bai. PW.2 Madavlal is a Patwari of Gram Panchayat, Bheemgarh who deposed that he could not say as to who was in possession of the land in dispute whereon occurrence took place. PW.3 Raju is a formal witness. PW. 4 Dr. R.D. Bhatt, Radiologist, has proved the X-Ray plates. PW.5 Madhu is the first informant. PW. 7 Chandi is an injured eye-witness. She stated that she, Pratap and Madhu were going. At that time all the four accused appellants came and assaulted. Mangu and Kalu had axes and others two and lathies. PW.3 Raju is a formal witness. PW. 4 Dr. R.D. Bhatt, Radiologist, has proved the X-Ray plates. PW.5 Madhu is the first informant. PW. 7 Chandi is an injured eye-witness. She stated that she, Pratap and Madhu were going. At that time all the four accused appellants came and assaulted. Mangu and Kalu had axes and others two and lathies. She further stated that accused Mangu and Sohan assaulted on her shoulder had thigh. Thereafter, they ran to assault Madhu but Madhu ran away. At that time Gopi and Lali came. They were also assaulted by the accused appellants. She further stated that during the pendency of criminal case Pratap and Gopi died. In cross-examination she admitted that there was a dispute with regard to the land. She admitted that at the time of occurrence her oxen were grazing in the “makki” (MACCA) crops of the accused appellants. 5. PW. 9 Lali settled that accused appellant Rama inflicted the injury on the legs of Pratap by stone. She further stated that all the four accused appellants inflicted the injuries. They wanted to assault Madhu but he ran away. She stated that Rama has not assaulted her but accused Sohania and Mangu assaultd her. She further stated that the quarrel was because of land dispute between the parties. Accused appellants wanted to take land whereas the complainant party never intended to give them the said land. 6. PW. 10 Narain and PW. 11 Jeetu are the alleged eye witnesses. They have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 7. The three witnesses produced in defence stated that the complainants and other injured were digging a well and due to sudden collapse of well they fell under the mud and sustained the injuries. Learned trial Court did not believe the defence evidence which otherwise also appears to be improbable. The statements of the defence witnesses were at variance and full of contradictions. Even otherwise the defence theory put forward is not plausible. The injuries suffered by Pratap resulted in fracture of leg and hand. PW. 7 Chandi has suffered a fracture of left clavical bone. Though Pratap and Gopi could not be examined before the trial Court as during the pendency of the criminal case they met natural death, however, from the evidence of other witnesses and the doctor who examined the injured persons, the injuries suffered by them are proved. PW. 7 Chandi has suffered a fracture of left clavical bone. Though Pratap and Gopi could not be examined before the trial Court as during the pendency of the criminal case they met natural death, however, from the evidence of other witnesses and the doctor who examined the injured persons, the injuries suffered by them are proved. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants submits that the occurrence is of 05.09.1982 and more than 21 years have elapsed and the appellants have already suffered imprisonment for more than 2-1/2 months and, therefore, he does not challenge the conviction of the appellants. However, he submits that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the prosecution has established the case against the accused appellants and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court needs no interference. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration for the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. From the close scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence, it appears that there was a bona fide dispute raised by the accused appellants with regard to the possession of the land. Even the prosecution witnesses admitted that at the time of occurrence the accused appellants made a claim for the land as they claim to be in possession of the land. The "makki" (MACCA) crops standing on the land was alleged to be that of the accused appellants and the oxen of the complainants were grazing the "makki" (MACCA) crops and that has given a cause for sudden fight between the parties. The occurrence took at the spur of moment with regard to grazing of oxen as also with regard to claiming of possession of land to which both the parties had their claims. The appellants have already suffered imprisonment for a period of 76 days. From the date of occurrence i.e. 05.09.1982 a period of more than 21 years has elapsed. 11. Keeping these mitigating circumstances in view, it would not be appropriate to send the accused persons to jail after 21 years. The ends of justice will be met if maintaining conviction the period of sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The accused appellants have already faced protected trial from 1982 to 1987 and thereafter, in appeal before this Court. The ends of justice will be met if maintaining conviction the period of sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The accused appellants have already faced protected trial from 1982 to 1987 and thereafter, in appeal before this Court. Keeping this fact in view, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. However, the conviction stands maintained. 12. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 325/34, 324/34 and 323/34 and the sentence of fine imposed are maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. On depositing the fine their bail bounds shall stand cancelled.