Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2402 (RAJ)

Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-09

AJAY RASTOGI, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-The controversy involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass. All that needs to be determined is as to whether it was an outcome of sudden fight that Nangu lost his life in the occurrence that took place on 16.06.1999 or preceding this fight, there was an altercation and it was a sudden affair in which whereas others sustained injuries, Nangu lost his life. 2. The only question, as framed above, emanates from the facts which reveal that Nangu died in an occurrence that had taken place on 16.06.1999. With regard to the incident aforesaid, First Information Report was lodged by Jagdish (PW. 3) on the same very day at 10:00 AM. In the occurrence leading to death of Nangu, Amar Singh (PW. 7), Ram Singh (PW. 4) and Ram Charan (PW. 1) were also injured. 3. Dr. Prithvi Ram Meena, PW. 2 stated that on 16.06.1999, he had medico legally examined Ram Charan S/o Mangla and found two injuries on his person, duration where of was 6 hours. He had also medico legally examined Amar Singh S/o Ram Charan and found 6 injuries which were of duration of 6-12 hours. He conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Nangu and found three injuries on his dead body. On that very day, Dr. Prithvi Ram Meena (PW. 2) examined Jagan and Sohan Singh accused who have since been acquitted. He found five injuries on the person of Jagan and three injuries on the person of Sohan Singh. Injuries No. 1 and 2 on the person of Sohan Singh were found to be grievous. It requires to be mentioned at this stage that the appellant Mohan Singh was tried with his co-accused Sohan Singh, Jagan, Samay Singh and Shiv Charan. The co-accused of the appellant, named above, have since been acquitted. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the learned Sessions Judge has returned a finding that it was a case of free fight resulting into death of Nangu and injuries to three persons namely; Amar Singh, Ram Singh and Ram Charan and also injuries to two accused persons namely; Jagan and Sohan Singh, who, as mentioned above, have since been acquitted. In as much as it was a case where occurrence was admitted, the only contention raised on behalf of the Counsel for the appellant is that it was a case of sudden fight and therefore, appellant Mohan Singh, who is said to have caused injuries to Nangu which became cause of his death, he could at the most be convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. If perhaps on facts a finding could be returned that it was a case of sudden fight, there could have been no exception whatsoever to the only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as noted above. Surely, in that case, the offence committed by the appellant Mohan Singh, would not have gone beyond Section 304 Part II of IPC. From the evidence, however, that came to be led by the prosecution, it is not possible to return a finding that it was a case of sudden fight. All three injured witnesses whose presence cannot be disputed and indeed has not been disputed as well, would reveal that the wall belonging to the complainant party was being broken by the appellant and his co-accused. They were requested not to demolish the wall. 6. While lodging the FIR, Jagdish stated that the fight that took place on 16.06.1999 at 8:00 in the morning was related to Pator (Stone slab meant to put on the roof of house) belonging to Jagan and himself . The Pator of both of them was earlier in the same line. Ram Singh had earlier put the stone slab. Jagan, thereafter, removed his Pator and usurped his. They did not say any thing but they started digging foundation. When he talked to them in this regard on 15.06.1999 they started fighting. They entered with sticks at his place where the ladies were also residing. The village people collected. Panches had asked them to settle the matter. In the morning, on the day of event they scaled his wall and attampted to make a wall at the place of his Pator. When Panches got together, they all got together and attacked them. First of all, Mohan gave a Sabbal blow on the head of Nangu. Nangu fell down after receipt of injury. In the morning, on the day of event they scaled his wall and attampted to make a wall at the place of his Pator. When Panches got together, they all got together and attacked them. First of all, Mohan gave a Sabbal blow on the head of Nangu. Nangu fell down after receipt of injury. Thereafter, with an iron Sabbal Samay Singh gave injury on his chest. Thereafter, Pooran gave injury on the head. Thereafter, Jagan gave a lathi blow to Ramcharan. Thereafter, Shiv Charan gave lathi blow on the neck. The FIR talks of other injuries given by the appellant and others. 7. Jagdish, PW 3 while making statements reiterated that the fight had taken place at the time when Panches had got collected. On counselling of parties Jagan got annoyed and in anger stated that the whole place belonged to him. They disbursed in anger, as according to them, a wrong decision was being taken. Jagan told Nangu to proceed ahead and after 5-10 minutes when all people were going to their houses, Nangu was surrounded on the way. Mohan Singh then gave injuries on head of Nangu with Sabbal. Jagan then gave narration of injuries given the Nangu and others. 8. We have gone through the evidence of Ram Singh (PW4) and Amar Singh (PW7), who as mentioned above, were injured in the same incident. They consistently stated the chain of events leading to death of Nangu. It was stated by them that the occurrence had taken place when they were constructing a wall. Jagan had gone after he got annoyed and thereafter towards the house of Battu, Mohan, Jagan, Samay Singh and Shiv Charan came. Mohan Singh was armed with Sabbal, whereas others were armed with sticks and Sabbals. Mohan Singh gave an injury with Sabbal on the head of Nangu. He then narrated other injuries that were given by the appellant and his co-accused. The defence could not elicit anything from these witnesses in the cross-examination which may even remotely suggest that it was in exchange of hot words taking place at the place of occurrence and that all of a sudden appellant and his co-accused resorted to give injuries to Nangu and others. 9. The defence could not elicit anything from these witnesses in the cross-examination which may even remotely suggest that it was in exchange of hot words taking place at the place of occurrence and that all of a sudden appellant and his co-accused resorted to give injuries to Nangu and others. 9. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Sohan Singh, Jagan, Samay Singh and Shiv Charan and therefore, it would not be possible to disturb the findings of learned Sessions Judge with regard to free fight. Be that as it may, from the evidence led by the prosecution it cannot be said that the occurrence had taken place on account of a sudden fight. The only contention that has been raised in support of the appeal needs thus to be repelled. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed upholding the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui, dated 17.07.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 43/2001.