Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 985 (RAJ)

Ram Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-27

SHASHI KANT SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. :- Instant criminal appeal has been filed by accused appellant Ram Prasad against the judgment dated 15.6.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran whereby the accused appellant Ram Prasad was convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine and in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The brief facts relevant and essential of the disposal of the appeal are as under : 3. On 3rd June, 1999, police recorded Parcha Bayan of Dev Karan wherein it was mentioned that he was sitting on the shop of Shanker where Santosh Bai came and asked him that what did he went. He said to her not to talk irrelevant, meanwhile Ram Prasad called him. He went there and Ram Prasad inflicted injury by Dhariya on his head. He also inflicted another injury and them Ram Prasad ran away. His Parcha Bayan is Ex. P-11. On this Parcha Bayan, police of Police Station Atru registered a case for the offence under section 341, 307, 323, 324 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Investigation started and on 11.6.99 Dev Karan died because of these injuries. During investigation police added offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and section 3 of SC/ST Act against Ram Prasad and Santosh Bai. During investigation police recorded statement of witnesses under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and recovered Dhariya on the information and at the instance of accused Ram Prasad and after completion of the investigation police filed challan before the concerned Magistrate for the offences under section 341, 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and section 3 of SC/ST Act against Ram Prasad and Santosh Bai wherefrom the case was committed to District and Sessions Judge, Baran wherefrom ultimately the case was transferred to learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. 4. In this case against accused appellant Ram Prasad charge for the offence under section 341 and 302 Indian Penal Code was framed and against accused Santosh Bai charge for the offences under section 302, 341/43 Indian Penal Code was framed. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. 4. In this case against accused appellant Ram Prasad charge for the offence under section 341 and 302 Indian Penal Code was framed and against accused Santosh Bai charge for the offences under section 302, 341/43 Indian Penal Code was framed. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In this case prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses namely PW 1 Ram Kishan, PW 2 Gouri Shanker, PW 3 Banwari Lal PW 4 Mahaveer, PW 5 Kanhaiya Lal, PW 6 Rameshwar, PW 7 Tolaram, PW 8 Mohan Lal, PW 9 Hemraj, PW 10 Girraj, PW 11 Meghraj, PW 12 Laxmi Chand, PW 13 Shambhu Singh, PW 14 Pawan Kumar, PW 15 Radhey Shyam, PW 16 Gopal Lal, PW 17 Ram Dayal Nagar, PW 18 Narender Kumar, PW 19 Bihari Lal, PW 20 Shoakat Ali, PW 21 Dr. N.D. Hirani and PW 22 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma. Statements of accused Ram Prasad and Santosh Bai were recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Accused examined DW 1 Ram Prasad son of Bhairulal as defence witness. After hearing arguments of both the parties, learned trial court acquitted Santosh Bai of all the charges and convicted Ram Prasad for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and passed the sentence as indicated above. 5. In appeal arguments were heard for both the parties. 6. Learned defence counsel has argued that prosecution has not proved any case against appellant Ram Prasad. In alternative it was contended that if at all court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved that appellant has inflicted one injury on the person of Dev Karan even then offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not made out against him. It is further contended that this case does not travel beyond Section 304-II Indian Penal Code. According to Dr. ND Hirana there were in all two injuries on the person of deceased Dev Karan. He had one cut injury on the head and another contusion on the back. It is further contended that according to prosecution accused Ram Prasad has inflicted injury by sharp edged weapon. In this way it is clear that accused Ram Karan has inflicted only one injury on the person of Dev Karan. It is also material that after causing that injury accused Ram Prasad ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is further contended that according to prosecution accused Ram Prasad has inflicted injury by sharp edged weapon. In this way it is clear that accused Ram Karan has inflicted only one injury on the person of Dev Karan. It is also material that after causing that injury accused Ram Prasad ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is clear that accused Ram Prasad had-not repeated the blow. From this fact it is clear that Ram Prasad had no intention to cause death of Dev Karan. If he would have had the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which may likely to cause death then positively he would have repeated the blow. The fact that after---causing only one injury he ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is clear that he had no intention of causing death or causing such injury which may likely to cause death of Dev Karan. It is, also contended that even according to prosecution accused caused injury on 3.6.99 in the morning at about 7-8 am and Dev Karan died on 10.6.99. In this way he died after 7 days. It is also contended that even according to prosecution first of all Santosh Bai came to Dev Karan and she asked to return their money, Dev Karan misbehaved with her then Santosh Bai went to her home then Ram Prasad came from his house and asked why he misbehaved with his wife and then after some altercation, in the heat of passion accused Ram Prasad inflicted one injury on the person of Dev Karan. It is also contended that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear the accused had caused this injury without any pre-meditation, in a sudden fight, heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It is also contended that in this way it is clear that utmost appellant accused may be convicted under Section 304-II Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial court and has contended that trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant Ram Prasad for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the appeal should be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial court and has contended that trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant Ram Prasad for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the appeal should be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides. After examining the statement of PW1 Ram Kishan it is clear that Ram Prasad has inflcited injury by Dhariya on the person of deceased Dev Karan. We have also examined the statement of PW21 Dr. N. D. Hirani who examined the injuries of Dev Karan on 3.6.99 and found one cut injury on his person. After reading the statement of PW1 Ram Kishan and PW21 Dr. N. D. Hirani and after examining the injury report Ex. P/21 we come to the conclusion that it is fully proved that Ram Prasad has inflicted one sharp injury on the person of Dev Karan. After examining the entire evidence it becomes clear that after inflicting injury, Ram Prasad raw away from the scene of occurrence. It is also dear that Ram Prasad inflcited injury on the person of Dev Karan on 3.6.99 and Dev Karan died on 10.6.99, in this way Dev Karan died after seven days from the date of occurrence. After reading the statement of PW 3 Banwari Lal it becomes clear that first of all wife of Ram Prasad came to Dev Karan and asked him to return their money. It is also clear that there was some altercation between the wife of Ram Prasad and Dev Karan, after that, wife of Ram Prasad went to her home and after 15-20 minutes accused Ram Prasad came there and he asked Dev .Kazan why did he abuse his wife, on this Dev Karan again abused him and then there was some altercation between Ram Prasad and Dev Karan. After reading the entire evidence we come to the conclusion that Ram Prasad has inflicted only one injury on the person of Dev Karan then he ran away from the scene of occurrence. After reading the entire evidence we come to the conclusion that Ram Prasad has inflicted only one injury on the person of Dev Karan then he ran away from the scene of occurrence. After examining all the evidence we come to the conclusion that Ram Prasad had no intention to cause death or to cause such injury which may likely to cause death of Dev Karan because if he would have intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury which may likely to cause death of Dev Karan then he would have repeated the blow which he did not do. After examining the entire evidence we come to the conclusion that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that it is not a case in which accused Ram Prasad may be convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. After reading entire evidence we come to the conclusion that accused appellant Ram Prasad has inflicted injury without pre-meditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that by inflicting injury on the person of Dev Karan, accused Ram Prasad has done an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death of Dev Karan but it was without any intention to cause his death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death. After considering all the above facts, we come to the conclusion that accused appellant Ram Prasad should be convicted for the offence under Section 304-II instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 8. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of Section 302 we convict the appellant Ram Prasad under Section 304-II Indian Penal Code. Looking to the fact that the appellant has been in continuous custody since July 19, 2000, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The appellant Ram Prasad, who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to e detained in any other case. Impugned judgment of the trial judge stands modified as indicated above.Appeal Parly Allowed. *******