Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2604 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-28

F.C.BANSAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
Honble SHARMA, J.–As many as 5 accused were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Kota in Sessions Case No. 332/98. Since co-accused Prabhu Lal died during trial the proceedings against him stood dropped. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated March 27, 1999 convicted and sentenced the remaining four accused as under:- Ram Gopal S/o Ramnarain U/S. 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/S. 302 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two years. U/S. 147 IPC No sentence. Ram Kishan, Ram Narayan and Ram Gopal S/o Bheru Lal U/S. 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/S. 302/149 IPC To suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two years. U/S. 147 IPC No sentence. All the substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The prosecution case, in nut-shell is like this:- On April 23, 1988, informant Madan Lal (PW 3) around 8.45 p.m. arrived at police station Kanwas along with his Uncle Kalulal and his injured father Nainki Lal (now deceased) who was unconscious and apprised that around 7.30 p.m. on the said day after the hot exchanges between the deceased and the accused Ram Narayan, Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain came over there. He was armed with `Londy (stick with iron rings). Accused Ram Narain and Prabhu Lal caught hold of deceased and exhorted Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain to kill the deceased. Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain then gave blow with `Londy on the forehead of the deceased. On the basis of the said report case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation Nainki Lal died and Section 302 IPC was added. autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. endue course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Kota. During investigation Nainki Lal died and Section 302 IPC was added. autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. endue course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Kota. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149 IPC were framed against appellant Ramgopal S/o Ramnarain whereas charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the remaining appellants Ram Kishan, Ram Narayan and Ramgopal S/o Bheru Lal. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 18 documents. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated here-in-above. (3). We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. (4). On April 23, 1988 injury of Nainki Lal was examined and vide injury report Ex. P. 16 he sustained lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 2cm x 1cm. on the right side of forehead. However, on April 29, 1988 when postmortem on the dead body was performed, two stitched wounds on right frontal region were found. According to Dr. C.M. Shrivastava (PW. 16), the cause of death was due to come as a result of head injury. The prosecution is thus able to establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (5). The prosecution examined Kalu Lal (PW.1) and Madan Lal (PW. 3) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Kalu Lal (PW.1) in his deposition stated that Narayan and Prabhu were hurling abuses at Nainki Lal and demanding explanation as to why he grinded flour of Chhitia. Nainki Lal denied to have grinded the flour of Chhitia. After some altercations, Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain inflicted blow on the head of Nainki Lal. In the cross- examination Kalu Lal admitted that Nainki Lal was his real brother and he died after 6-7 days of the occurrence. (6). Madan Lal (PW. 3), who is son of Nainki Lal deposed that there was altercation between the appellants and the deceased in regard to grinding of flour of Chhitia. Thereafter Ramgopal went to his house, came back with `londy and inflicted two blows on the forehead of Nainki Lal. (6). Madan Lal (PW. 3), who is son of Nainki Lal deposed that there was altercation between the appellants and the deceased in regard to grinding of flour of Chhitia. Thereafter Ramgopal went to his house, came back with `londy and inflicted two blows on the forehead of Nainki Lal. In his cross-examination he stated that he had apprised the police about infliction of two injuries by Ramgopal but police wrote only one. (7). Having carefully analysed the evidence of Kalu Lal and Madan Lal, we find that Ram Kishan S/o Anandi Lal, Ram Narayan and Ramgopal S/o Bheru Lal were not the members of unlawful assembly and charges under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC could not be established again them beyond reasonable doubt. The injury caused by Ramgopal S/o Ramnarain was his individual act. In view of the fact that Kalu Lal and Madan Lal were thickly related to the deceased, possibility of over implication of Ram Kishan, Ram Narayan, and Ram Gopal S/o Bheru Lal cannot be ruled out. In regard to the allegations against Ramgopal S/o Ramnarain, we notice from the evidence that he acted in a sudden fight and without premeditation. His act of inflicting single injury in the heat of passion was not unusual. Since he gave single blow and did not repeat it, we are of the opinion that Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC is attracted and accused Ramgopal S/o Ramnarain could only be held guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. (8). For these reasons we dispose of the instant appeal in following terms:- (i) We allow the appeal of appellants Ram Kishan, Ram Narayan and Ram Gopal S/o Bheru Lal and acquit them of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC. They are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (ii) We partly allow the appeal of appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain and instead of section 302 IPC, we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC. Looking to the fact that appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain has already suffered the sentence for a period of more than six years and ten months, we sentence him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. We, however, acquit the appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. Looking to the fact that appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain has already suffered the sentence for a period of more than six years and ten months, we sentence him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. We, however, acquit the appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. Appellant Ram Gopal S/o Ram Narain, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. (iii) The impugned judgment of trial Court stands modified as indicated above.