Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1903 (RAJ)

Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-26

B.PRASAD, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment 1. The present appellant Ram Swaroop was tried alongwith Shrawan Ram by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC. After the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Shrawan of the charges under Section 302/34, IPC giving him the benefit of doubt. Accused Ram Swaroop was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case was that Laxman Singh, a student, was given thrashing by Ramswaroop while he came out of school. This thrashing was given to Laxman Singh because Ramswaroop said that why did he indulge in quarrel with Ashok. On, this, it is alleged that Laxman Singh went to the village where Vijay Singh, Sumer Singh, Sawai Singh and Tulach Singh were there in the open courtyard. He complained to them and on that, they proceeded to make Ramswaroop understand. 3. On arriving at the bus stand, Shrawan Ram caught hold of Sumer Singh and Ramswaroop gave knife blows. This story of the prosecution was the basis of the prosecution case. To support this case, the prosecution examined eye-witnesses PW. 3 Tulach Singh who in his statement has submitted that while they were standing in the open space of the village alongwith Sumer Singh, Sawai Singh and Vijay Singh, at that time, Laxman Singh came running to them and said that Shrawan Kumar and Ramswaroop had thrashed him. This witness alongwith three others went towards the school where Ramswaroop and Shrawan Kumar were standing. Sumer Singh told Ramswaroop that why he had given beating to Laxman Singh, on which Sumer Singh and Sharwan Kumar entered into a scuffle and thereafter, Ramswaroop came from behind and gave 3-4 stab wounds to Sumer Singh. According to this witness, two injuries were inflicted on the chest, one in the back and one on the neck. After infliction of the injuries, Sumer Singh fell on the ground. 4. Witness Tulach Singh PW. 3 was suggested in his cross-examination that Laxman Singh informed them that he had entered into a quarrel with Ashok Bishnoi in school. This suggestion was denied by this witness. This witness has also denied the suggestion that Ramswaroop came to disengage him and Ashok on which thrashing was given. This witness has asserted that Ramswaroop gave thrashing to Laxman unwarranted. This suggestion was denied by this witness. This witness has also denied the suggestion that Ramswaroop came to disengage him and Ashok on which thrashing was given. This witness has asserted that Ramswaroop gave thrashing to Laxman unwarranted. Further, it has been admitted that no sooner Sumer Singh arrived, he asked Ramswaroop that why he had given beating to Laxman Singh. This has also come on record that in the FIR Exhibit-P/6, he has not stated that Shrawan Kumar caught hold of Sumer Singh from behind. This witness also admitted that prior to the incident, there was no animosity in between both the parties. 5. PW. 4 Sawai Singh also stated that on being complained by Laxman Singh, they went to the bus stand where they found Ramswaroop and Shrawan standing and at that time, Sumer Singh asked Ramswaroop as to why Laxman Singh was given beating. Thereafter, Ramswaroop and Shrawan Ram entered into a scuffle with Sumer Singh. Ramswaroop brought out his knife from his pocket and gave knife blows on the chest of Sumer Singh, on his neck and back. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no previous enmity in between the parties. He has also stated the knife was in the pocket of Ramswaroop. 6. The prosecution has also examined PW. 5 Vijay Singh. He has also stated in conformity with the statements of the other witnesses. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the story of the prosecution so far as it relates to catching hold of Sumer Singh by Shrawan Kumar, is not believed and had acquitted Shrawan Kumar of the charges under Section 302, read with 34, IPC. The trial Court considering the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the incident had occurred without any premeditation but then, the story given by the eye-witnesses is trustworthy. The injuries caused by the accused appellant Ramswaroop were considered sufficient by the medical evidence to cause death. It was held that it cannot be said that the case of the accused is covered by any one of the exceptions under Section 300, IPC. It cannot dilute the offence under Section 302, IPC to Section 304, IPC. It has been held by the trial Court that Ramswaroop was knowing it fully well that whatever act he is going to commit can result into death of the person. It cannot dilute the offence under Section 302, IPC to Section 304, IPC. It has been held by the trial Court that Ramswaroop was knowing it fully well that whatever act he is going to commit can result into death of the person. Therefore, he was convicted under Section 302, IPC. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case of the accused appellant is not proved as alleged by the prosecution. It was a minor incident of giving few slaps to Laxman Singh at the beginning but this could not have been given shape where the accused appellant could be convicted under Section 302, IPC. The accused only grappled and in the grappling, the deceased got knife injuries by accident and it cannot be said that it was a pre-meditated act of the accused. There was no previous enmity and the nature of the injuries do not suggest that a case under Section 302, IPC would be made out against the accused appellant without there being any bad blood in between the parties. It cannot be said that the accused intended to cause injury as has been held proved by the trial Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the accused has placed reliance on Para-6 of a decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Bhikaji Dharmale vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 2002 (6) SC 287, wherein, Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-“In view of the evidence, it is not possible for us to say that the appreciation of evidence has been either perverse or the learned Session Judge as well as the High Court could not have come to such a conclusion that the appellant was guilty. However, looking to the nature of the injuries, absence of premeditation on the part of the appellant, to commit the murder of the deceased and that in the sudden scuffle at the spur of the moment, the appellant took out the knife and assaulted the deceased, we find it difficult to sustain conviction under Section 302, IPC. It may be also kept in mind that the appellant himself received two incised wound in the scuffle. There was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased. It may be also kept in mind that the appellant himself received two incised wound in the scuffle. There was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances established in the case and in the absence of any positive proof that the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicting the injury, which in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, the offence squarely falls under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC.” 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor asserted that the case of the prosecution is supported by direct evidence. None of the witnesses have been shaken in the cross-examination and the prosecution case as made out has been established to be proved by the testimony of witnesses PW. 3 Tulach Singh, PW. 4 Sawai Singh & PW. 5 Vijay Singh. They have consistently deposed against the accused. In the cross-examination, the basic case of the prosecution has not been shaken and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not been able to make out the case as has been held proved by the trial Court. The school boy was given thrashing for no reason. No suggestion was given to this witnesses that there was any quarrel between Laxman Singh and Ashok on that very day. It was a designed thrashing by the accused Ramswaroop to witness Laxman Singh. .10. We have given our thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. The eye-witnesses account un-ambiguously establish the case that when Laxman Singh received thrashing at the hands of the accused Ramswaroop, he had gone to complain to the deceased and his companions, They were standing in the open space of the village. They came to make the accused understand that this kind of thrashing should not be given but on this, the appellant and his associate entered into a scuffle. Shrawan Ram caught hold of the deceased and Ramswaroop gave knife blows. The injuries sustained by the deceased are as follows:- 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left supraclavicular region. 2. Stab incised wound - 3 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on left side of chest; 9.5 cm below and med to nipple near sternum. 3. The injuries sustained by the deceased are as follows:- 1. Incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on left supraclavicular region. 2. Stab incised wound - 3 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on left side of chest; 9.5 cm below and med to nipple near sternum. 3. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right side of chest 1/3; 9 cm below and med. to nipple. 4. Stab incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on back of left side of chest. 5. Abrasion 6.5 cm x 0.2 cm on left arm M/3 lat 6. Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm on left forearm U/3 7. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on right knee cut. 8. Abrasion 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm on left knee cut. 11. The injuries show that stab injuries are cavity deep on the chest. Two wounds, which are cavity deep have been inflicted on the chest and legs. The injuries in this case cannot be said to be of insignificant nature. They are of sufficient magnitude to cause death and which in fact has been caused in the incident. The suggestion of the defense that, had there been sufficient medical attention given to the deceased, the deceased would not have succumbed to the injuries. It is too remote a possibility because while the injured was being shifted for medical aid, he succumbed to the injuries. It was only a wild guess that had there been medical attention, the deceased would have survived. 12. The incident was reported to PW . 2 Ganga Singh immediately after the occurrence. His jeep was utilized for transporting the injured from the site of incident to the hospital. Whatever information was given by Sawai Singh to this witness has been narrated by him and according to him, Ramswaroop was the assailant of Summer Singh. Immediately after the occurrence, this witness was informed by Sawai Singh and if this witness supports the prosecution case then, it is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of eye-witnesses as res-gestae. Therefore, implication of the accused in causing injuries stands established. 13. Immediately after the occurrence, this witness was informed by Sawai Singh and if this witness supports the prosecution case then, it is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of eye-witnesses as res-gestae. Therefore, implication of the accused in causing injuries stands established. 13. As regards the nature of the offence, the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defense cannot be considered to be one which throws light on the circumstances of this case because in that case the accused himself had received incised wounds in the scuffle. In the instance case, no injuries were sustained by the accused at all. The injuries sustained by the deceased were of greater magnitude. It can be inferred that the accused had done the act with the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the case falls under clause thirdly of Section 300, IPC and cannot be brought under any of the exceptions of offence under Section 300, IPC. 14. In the result, we find that the prosecution case is trustworthy and the offence as alleged has been rightly held proved against the accused He has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. There is no force in the appeal. The appeal is herby dismissed.