Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1411 (RAJ)

Anni v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-01

SHASHI KANT SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Anni, Nihal Singh, Ramesh Chand, Shibbu and Khiladi, the appellants five in number, were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli, who vide Judgment dated 112.2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:- Anni Under Section 302, IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000/-in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Nihal Singh, Ramesh Chand, Shibbu and Khiladi: Under Section 323, IPC: Instead of sentencing them benefit of probation was extended. 2. The State of Rajasthan preferred the leave to appeal against the finding of acquittal of appellants Nihal Singh, Ramesh Chand, Shibbu and Khiladi under Section 302/149, IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that on 20.01.2002 the informant Roop Singh Meena (PW. 5) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station, Todabhim stating therein that on the preceding day the accused persons armed with various weapons assaulted Hari Singh (since deceased). Ramesh inflicted blow with Dahria on the head of Hari Singh as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious, thereafter Anni, Shibbu, Nihal Singh, Khiladi, Nirma and Shanti also gave beating to Hari Singh. When Tunda Ram intervened he was also beaten up. Ram Khiladi removed Hari Singh to hospital, from where he was referred to Jaipur. On the aforesaid report a case was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 448, 336 and 307, IPC and investigation commenced. After Hari Singh succumbed to his injuries Section 302, IPC was added. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City District Karauli. Charges under Sections 148, 323, 341, 302 and 302/149, IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record. 5. It appears from the record that prior to his death the injury received by Hari Singh was examined vide MLR (Exhibit P-11) which reads as under:- 1. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record. 5. It appears from the record that prior to his death the injury received by Hari Singh was examined vide MLR (Exhibit P-11) which reads as under:- 1. L shaped lacerated wound on Lt. frontal region whose vertical wound length 2.5 cm horigental wound 1.5 cm and oblique wound 1 cm length 2. 5 cm x ¾ cm x bone deep. 1.5 cm x ¾ cm x bone deep, 1 cm x ¾ x bone deep. Dr. Ravindra Sachdeva (PW. 17), who conducted autopsy on the dead body vide autopsy report (Exhibit P-21), deposed that the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury. Tunda (PW. 1) vide MLR (Exhibit P-10) received following injuries:- 1. contusion with abrasion on anterolateral side of upper end of Rt. leg 2 ¼ x 1 ¼ cm on Rt. leg. 2. Contusion on back of thores just Rt. To mid line 5 cm x 3cm. 6. On scrutinising the record we notice that Tunda (PW. 1) is the star witness of the prosecution. He is the real brother of the deceased and sustained injuries during the incident. According to him when Ramesh came to the spot armed with Dharia, he was not able to inflict injury with Dharia because it was snatched from him. It was Anni who pelted stone at Hari Singh which hit Hari Singh on the head and caused injury that proved fatal. From the prosecution evidence it also appears that the accused party and complainant party were neighbours and incident occurred while the accused party was keeping stone slabs behind the house and Hari Singh objected to it. 7. Having analysed the evidence adduced at the trial we find that there was no unlawful assembly. As already noticed the incident occurred when the deceased objected the act of keeping of stone slabs of the accused party. When objection was raised the quarrel started and stones were pelted on account of which Tunda and Hari Singh both sustained injuries. The injury caused by Anni to Hari Singh proved fatal and resulted in his death. As already noticed the incident occurred when the deceased objected the act of keeping of stone slabs of the accused party. When objection was raised the quarrel started and stones were pelted on account of which Tunda and Hari Singh both sustained injuries. The injury caused by Anni to Hari Singh proved fatal and resulted in his death. In these circumstances, unable to fasten vicarious criminal liability under Section 149, IPC on Nihal Singh, Ramesh Chand, Shibbu and Khiladi and in our opinion they have been rightly convicted and released on probation for the offence under Section 323, IPC. Therefore, the leave to appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. 8. Since, appellant Anni and deceased Hari Singh were neighbours, their relations were cordial prior to the incident which occurred all of sudden and having got enraged Anni pelted one stone and did not behave in cruel or unusual manner, it can be presumed that appellant Anni had knowledge that the stone pelted by him was likely to cause death of Hari Singh, even though he had no intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, therefore, the appellant Anni is guilty of the offence punishable under Part II of Section 304, IPC. 9. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant matters in the following terms:- (i) Wepartly allow the appeal of appellant Anni and instead of Section 302, IPC we convict him under Section 304, Part II, IPC, and the appellant Anni has undergone confinement for a period of about four years and five months, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The appellant Anni, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained, in any other case. We however dismiss the appeal of appellants Nihal Singh, Ramesh Chand, Shibbu and Khiladi and maintain their conviction under Section 323, IPC. Since, they were released on probation by the learned trial Judge they need not surrender. .(ii) D.B. Criminal Leave to appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan being devoid of merit stands dismissed. (iii) The impugned Judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above.