Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1395 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2007-07-25

BHAGWATI PRASAD, MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out the decision of the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Balotra in Sessions Case No. 64/2001 dated 8.4.2003 whereby the accused appellant Devi Singh was convicted as under : Under Section 302 I.P.C. : To the life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- Under Section 341 I.P.C. : One months R.I. Under Section 327 I.P.C. : 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment to further undergo four months R.I. as an additional imprisonment and to set aside the same The accused appellant Gopa Ram was convicted as under : Under Section 341 I.P.C. : One month's S.I. Under Section 327/34 I.P.C. : Four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' R.I. 2. Both the sentences of the two accused were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The accused Dhakar Ram was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 4. The prosecution case started with lodging of the F.I.R. at Police Station Samdari by PW-4 Dhala Ram on 12.3.2001 at 6.15 A.M. According to the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. PW-5 Bheema Ram was to be dropped at his in-laws by Ashok and Dhaglaram. At about 10.00 they arrived at Village Majal. They left Bheema Ram and they proceeded to make recovery of money from habitants of Sattiyan. When they arrived there, the three accused persons i.e. Devi Singh, Dhakad Ram and Oma Ram Bheel obstructed their way and demanded money for drinking. When the money was not given Dhakad Ram caught hold of Dhala Ram and the accused Gopi Ram caught hold of Ashok and Devi Singh gave knife blows to Ashok. At that time PW-1 Poorki, PW-2 Smt. Gulabi and PW-3 Ranki also arrived on the scene of occurrence and they saw Devi Singh inflicting blows on "deceased Ashok. When Ashok and Dhalaram started for going to the hospital, Ashok could not resist to his injuries and fell down near the boundary of water works. At that time PW-5 Bheema Ram and PW-6 Ratria Ram arrived to whom Ashok informed that he has been inflicted injuries by the accused Devi Singh. 5. After filing of the F.I.R., investigation was started. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. At that time PW-5 Bheema Ram and PW-6 Ratria Ram arrived to whom Ashok informed that he has been inflicted injuries by the accused Devi Singh. 5. After filing of the F.I.R., investigation was started. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Charges were framed against the accused Devi Singh under Sections 341, 323 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) and the remaining two accused were charged under Sections 341, 327 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The charges were denied by the accused persons and they claimed trial. 6. The trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that Dhakar Ram was not involved in the incident and he was given benefit of doubt on the ground that PW-1 Poorki, PW-2 Smt. Gulabi and PW-3 Ranki have not named Dhakar Ram to be present there. On that score, these three witnesses have turned hostile though, they have with stood by their earlier statements regarding other accused. 'Thus, Dhakar Ram was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court. Participation of Gopa Ram was also not believed by the trial Court, as far as aiding Devi Singh in inflicting blows on Ashok and, therefore, Gopa Ram was only convicted under Sections 327/34 and 341 I.P.C. and he was acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34. The accused Devi Singh was however, convicted as aforesaid because the prosecution case as stated by PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 against him was found to be trustworthy and trial Court held that he was guilty of causing serious injuries on Ashok and he died because of that injuries. 7. Arguing the case on behalf of Devi Singh, learned counsel for the appellant stated that trial Court has not believed the story of the prosecution. The major part of the prosecution story having been disbelieved it does not stand to reason that Devi Singh was the assailant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further stressed that the money was found from the person of deceased Ashok, therefore, the motive given was wrong motive. 9. The defence came with the version that the deceased with his companion had gone to the habitants of ladies to ill repute and there they came into the contact of some unknown assailants and having quarreled with those Ashok died. 10. 9. The defence came with the version that the deceased with his companion had gone to the habitants of ladies to ill repute and there they came into the contact of some unknown assailants and having quarreled with those Ashok died. 10. Learned counsel submits that the incident had taken place without pre meditation and, therefore, the accused appellant Devi Singh is entitled to be acquitted. As regards the accused Gopa Ram, learned counsel stressed that he has been acquitted of the major charges, therefore, he should be considered to be one who was not involved in the incident and minor offence should not be pressed against him. In any case, learned counsel submits that the sentence awarded to him for the offence alleged are excessive and he has remained behind the bars for sufficient time i.e. around two years and that should be treated to have remained sufficiently behind the bars. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration. Looking to the participation of Goparam and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not go into the details of the cast of Goparam who has been convicted under Sections 341 and 327/34 I.P.C. For about two years he has remained behind the bars, we consider that ends of justice would meet if his substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Now we take up the case of accused Devi Singh. As far as the participation of accused Devi Singh is concerned, his participation has been consistently deposed by PWs-1 to 4 though PWs-1, 2 and 3 have been turned hostile for other accused i.e. Dhakar Ram. All four eye witnesses consistent in their statements. There being consistent case as deposed against accused Devi Singh while four eye witnesses who have with stood with the cross of cross examination, it does not stand to reason as to why testimony of eye witnesses to be discarded qua the participation of accused Devi Singh. The case against the accused Devi Singh is being proved by the primary evidence of the eye-witnesses and corroborated by the F.I.R. in which his participation. was deposed immediately after the occurrence. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that Ashok died due to the injury sustained. The injuries have been inflicted on Ashok by the accused Devi Singh. was deposed immediately after the occurrence. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution that Ashok died due to the injury sustained. The injuries have been inflicted on Ashok by the accused Devi Singh. There being nothing in the cross examination, these four eye-witnesses dilute the case of Devi Singh. 13. We accordingly consider it appropriate that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Devi Singh and we have no hesitation to say that the case against the accused Devi Singh has been brought home successfully by the prosecution. Accordingly, we hold Devi Singh guilty of charges held proved by the trial Court. 14. In the result, the appeal of Goparam is partly allowed. His substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal of the accused Devi Singh is rejected. He is behind the bars, he should serve out his remaining sentence. Goparam is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal partly allowed. *******