Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1241 (RAJ)

Shrawan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Petitoiner Shrawan Singh earlier filed a bail application under Section 439, CrPC being S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail (Parole) Application No. 490/2005 seeking release on bail temporarily, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC being S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 962/2005, which also came to be dismissed as it was not pressed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Now, the petitioner by the instant successive bail application under Section 439, CrPC seeks release on bail. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor assisted by Counsel for the complainant. Perused the challan papers, statements of the witnesses and the injuries reports and reports of Radiologist of three persons viz. Narendra Singh, Ganga Singh and Mool Singh. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Raju Singh, Lala Ram and Prema Ram have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2005. It is further contended that injured Narendra Singh suffered as many as eight injuries, out of which, only two injuries are grievous in nature and every grievous injury is not necessarily dangerous to life. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are stereo type. Other set of evidence of certain witnesses, which shows the presence of the petitioner at his house at the time of occurrence, entitles the petitioner for bail. 4. Facts giving rise to the instant bail application are that the first information report was lodged on 111.2004 against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332 and 307, IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 3 P.D.P.P. Act, inter alia, alleging therein that a secret information was received by the Assistant Excise Officer injured Narendra Singh that the petitioner and other co-accused are the liquor smugglers and are in possession of the illicit liquor. The place was raided by the Excise Officials. The place was raided by the Excise Officials. However, by seeing Excise Party from a distance of 100 metre, petitioner Sarwan Singh, co-accused Bhawani Singh and 2-3 others fled away in white colour Bolero Jeep and on search being carried out of the house of petitioner Sarwan Singh, a huge quantity of illicit liquor was recovered; and after recovery of illicit liquor while Excise Officials were going in a jeep, it is alleged that petitioner and other co-accused surrounded the Excise Officials, and petitioner Shrawan Singh fired gunshot aiming Narendra Singh Assistant Excise Officer. Petitioner has repeatedly fired 12 bore gun causing as many as 8 injuries to injured Narendra Singh by gunshot injuries on forehead, parietal region of skull, occipital region of skull, scapular region, lumber region and multiple gunshot injuries on various parts of body. It was also alleged that co-accused Bhawani Singh has also fired the 12 bore gun causing gunshot injuries to Ganga Singh and Mool Singh, both are Excise Officials. Ganga Singh has suffered two injuries by gunshot and Mool Singh also suffered four injuries. The report of Radiologist shows the evidence of fracture outer table of skull vault in right parietal and occipital region with rounded two r.o. F.B. 2 pellets seen in disploe space an anther r.o.F.B. seen in soft tissue of right side parietal region. The report further shows the evidence of multiple r.o.F.B. pellets seen in soft tissue of dorsal aspect of hand etc. So far as injuries reports of Ganga Singh and Mool Singh are concerned, they too have suffered the gunshot injuries and pellets have been detected from the place of injuries. Injuries caused to Narendra Singh on the skull in right parietal and occiptal region are grievous in nature. As per the report of Radiologist, injuries No. 2 and 3 suffered by Narendra Singh are grievous in nature. Injured Narendra Singh, Ganga Singh, Mool Singh and other occupants of the excise departments jeep viz. Akhey Singh and Onkar Singh stated that after surrounding the excise party, petitioner Shrawan Singh fired gunshot aiming Narendra Singh and caused injuries on his skull and shoulder etc. He fired two gunshots. Co-accused Bhawani Singh also fired form 12 bore gun causing injuries to Ganga Singh and Mool Singh. Akhey Singh and Onkar Singh stated that after surrounding the excise party, petitioner Shrawan Singh fired gunshot aiming Narendra Singh and caused injuries on his skull and shoulder etc. He fired two gunshots. Co-accused Bhawani Singh also fired form 12 bore gun causing injuries to Ganga Singh and Mool Singh. Police has also recorded the statements of Kalu Singh and Durga Ram, who are said to be the bus conductor and driver respectively and on the relevant date were travelling in a bus, on road they noticed certain persons in "Khakhi Dress", who were quarreling. They did not stop the bus and went away. One Chain Dan stated that there was engagement ceremony at the house of petitioner and someone informed that Bhawani Singh and Raju Singh have fired gunshot to the Excise Officials. Petitioner Shrawan Singh went from the house apprehending that he would be arrested by the police. The evidence of Kalu Singh and Durga Ram prima facie do not have any relevancy so also of Chaindan whose statements may be in plea of alibi. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and filed a list of criminal cases pending against petitioner Shrawan Singh, and submits that apart from the present case, where a huge quantity of illicit liquor recovered from him and having made an attempt to cause murder of Assistant Excise Officer, Narendra Singh by causing gunshot injuries on the skull and other parts of body, he has been declared history-sheeter and as many as 17 criminal cases are pending against him including robbery causing of grievous hurt, theft, house breaking, attempt to commit murder, kidnapping and for the offence punishable under the Excise Act etc. and contended that the petitioner is a liquor smuggler and he has been repeating the offence whenever has been released on bail in the various cases and misused the liberty granted to him. 6. On careful consideration of the entire material, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of injured persons, who have suffered injuries alleged to have been at the hands of the petitioner, the injuries have been caused by the petitioner by gunshot. Injured Narendra Singh has suffered eight gunshot injuries, two of which are grievous in nature on the skull. On careful consideration of the entire material, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of injured persons, who have suffered injuries alleged to have been at the hands of the petitioner, the injuries have been caused by the petitioner by gunshot. Injured Narendra Singh has suffered eight gunshot injuries, two of which are grievous in nature on the skull. While arguing the bail application filed by co-accused Raju Singh, Lala Ram and Prema Ram before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was argued that in fact it was accused-petitioner Shrawan Singh, who caused gunshot injuries to Narendra Singh. It was categorically argued in the bail application filed by Raju Singh and others that the gunshot injuries have been caused by petitioner Shrawan Singh and co-accused Bhawani Singh. Now learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, contends that petitioner Sharwan Singh was not present at the place of occurrence. From the evidence available on record and from the statements of witnesses more particularly injured eye-witness and other Excise Officials, who are members of excise raid party, prima facie, petitioner and co-accused noticed above were present at the time of occurrence and caused the gunshot injuries to Excise Officials. A repot has been filed by SHO, Police Station, Jhanwar showing the details of pendency of the cases against petitioner Shrawan Singh. As many as 17 cases are pending against him. In the recent past, the petitioner has been indulging in committing the offences apart form the offence punishable under the Excise Act i.e., attempt to commit murder, kidnapping, house breaking, robbery etc. In the report, it has been stated that the petitioner, alongwith co-accused Bhawani Singh and Raju Singh, is a history-sheeter and illicit liquor smuggler. He has been manufacturing the illicit liquor with the help of spirit and indulging in trading of illicit liquor. In the event of release of the petitioner on bail, there is every likelihood that he would indulge in smuggling of the illicit liquor and cause physical harm to the Government Officials, who are the witnesses. He has been manufacturing the illicit liquor with the help of spirit and indulging in trading of illicit liquor. In the event of release of the petitioner on bail, there is every likelihood that he would indulge in smuggling of the illicit liquor and cause physical harm to the Government Officials, who are the witnesses. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grievous injuries caused to Assistant Excise Officer Narendra Singh are not necessarily to dangerous to life is concerned, to construe the offence under Section 307, IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and the intention of the accused may also be deducted from other circumstances and, therefore, it is sufficient for constituting an offence under Section 307, IPC that intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof .. 7. In State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Bama Patil & Ors., 1983 (2) SCC 28 , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:-"It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof . It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deducted from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt." The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in Girja Shanker vs. Stae of U.P., JT 2004 (2) SC 140, Bappa alias Bapu vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 4119 , Vasant Vithu Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (9) SCC 31 and in R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka , 2004 (9) SCC 27 . Thus, in view of the settled law to construe the offence under Section 307, IPC, it is not the requirement that the injury inflicted must be capable of causing death or dangerous to life, what is to be seen is the intention and the circumstances in which the injuries having been inflicted, the intention and the knowledge mentioned in Section 307, IPC, is relevant. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the injuries are not dangerous to life would not take the case out of purview of Section 307, IPC merits rejection. 8. So far as pendency of the cases is concerned, it may not be a sole ground for refusal to release a person on bail but the pendency of the cases is a relevant factor of consideration for bail and in the cases pending against the petitioner noticed above, he has been enlarged on bail but whenever he has been released on bail in the earlier cases, he has misused the liberty granted to him and in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his interfering with the enquiry even the petitioner may go to threat the witness or causing physical harm to the complainant and other injured witnesses, which obvious from the report filed by the police. I am fortified with the view of the Honble Supreme Court taken in Omar Usman Chamadia vs. Abdul & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 1508 . 9. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that there is a strong evidence against the petitioner that he alongwith co-accused surrounded the Excises Officials and caused gunshot injuries to Narendra Singh and two others and in view of the injuries on the skull caused to Assistant Excise Officer, Narendra Singh, which are grievous in nature and prima facie apart from other offences an offence under Section 307, IPC is made out. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not consider it a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. Any observation made hereinabove is prima facie purely and tentative and it shall not in any manner prejudice the parties in the trial of criminal case. 10. The bail application filed by petitioner Shrawan Singh under Section 439, CrPC is rejected accordingly.