Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2584 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-25

GOVIND MATHUR, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The judgment under appeal is dated 21.7.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bhilwara, convicting the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment for two months. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that an F.I.R. (Exhibit P-5) was lodged by Shri Surajmal PW-4, at Police Station Jahajpur on 3.8.2003 at 6 A.M. with an allegation that on 2.8.2003, at about 8 P.M., while he was talking with Bholu, Ranjeet came armed with Bamboo stick and started abusing Bholu. As per the F.I.R., Ranjeet inflicted lathi blow on the head of Surajmal and when he wanted to snatch the lathi, Ranjeet inflicted another blow on his hand. The accused appellant then came and inflicted lathi blow on the head of Bholu. Smt. Nousi, mother of Surajmal and Seema his daughter too arrived on the spot of occurrence. Ugma, the brother of Bholu also came there and rescued Bholu, while going to the hospital at Bhilwara, Bholu died near Mandal. 3. On the basis of the information aforesaid, a case was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency arrested Ranjeet and Ramlal and after usual investigation, submitted a police report as per the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. The trial Judge charged the accused Ranjeet under Section 323, 302/34 Indian Penal Code and the accused appellant Ramlal for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. An opportunity was also accorded to the accused persons to explain adverse circumstances available in the prosecution evidence, After considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused Ranjeet from the charge pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 5. In appeal, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of eye-witnesses is absolutely unbelievable in view of the fact that they were not present at the spot. The trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 5. In appeal, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of eye-witnesses is absolutely unbelievable in view of the fact that they were not present at the spot. It is further submitted that as per the medical evidence the deceased Bholu was having two injuries on his head and our of those, one is assigned to present appellant, but nothing is said about author of the second injury, and, that being too a cause of death, the appellant could not have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. In alternative, it is also urged that even by accepting the prosecution case in totality, the act of the accused appellant does not travel beyond an offence described under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. 6. We have scanned the entire record and considered the same in light of the arguments advanced. Dr. Narnedra Singh, PW-18 conducted an autopsy on the person of deceased Bholu and submitted a post-mortem report. According to Dr. Narnedra Singh, deceased Bholu suffered two head injuries and those are as under : (1) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/2cm x 1/2cm on the back of head. (2) Diffuse swelling on anterior part of head (frontal) 7. In opinion of this witness, the cause of death was Hemorrhage and shock due to head injury. In view of the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about the homicidal death of deceased Bholu. 8. The prosecution substantiated its case with the add of four eye- witnesses and on examination of their testimony, we do not find any reason to disbelieve them. PW-4 Surajmal in quite specific terms stated that on the fateful day, at about 8 P.M., Ramlal and Ranjeet were indulged in hot altercations with Bholu. They were also quarreling with him and at that time, Ranjeet gave a Bamboo lathi blow to this witness. The accused Ramlal gave a lathi blow on the head of deceased Bholu, who then fell down. As per this witness, Bholu then was taken to a Doctor at Jahajpur, who referred the case for Bhilwara hospital, in transit, Bholu died near Mandal. This witness also stated that at the time of occurrence, Smt. Nousi, Seema and Ugma were also present at the spot. 9. As per this witness, Bholu then was taken to a Doctor at Jahajpur, who referred the case for Bhilwara hospital, in transit, Bholu died near Mandal. This witness also stated that at the time of occurrence, Smt. Nousi, Seema and Ugma were also present at the spot. 9. PW-8 Smt. Seema in quite definite terms stated that on hearing hue & cry made by Surajmal, she came out of the house and saw that Ranjeet was giving a lathi blow to Surajmal. Ramlal then came to the spot, armed with a., lathi and gave a blow from that on the head of Bholu. Bholu immediately fell down and the accused persons ran away from the spot. The same narration of facts is made by Smt. Nousi PW-9. PW-10 Ugma stated that he saw Ranjeet and Ramlal running away from the spot, carrying lathis in their hands. 10. These witnesses were cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused, wherein too, they maintained their version. As such, we do not find any just reason to disbelieve them. As a matter of fact testimony of these witnesses is sufficient to reach at the conclusion that Ran-dal gave lathi blows to deceased Bholu and that resulted into his death. 11. The issue that deserves consideration is about the nature of offence committed by these persons. The eye-witnesses referred above categorically stated that some dispute was existing between the accused Ramlal and the deceased Bholuram. Initially they were indulged in some altercations and they were quarrelling. As a consequent to the heat of moment, Ran-dal who is son of Ranjeet, intervened and gave a lathi blow on the head of deceased Bholu. The entire evidence available on record, no where discloses any intention of the accused about killing of Bholu. This accused was carrying a Bamboo lathi and that is not a weapon that may essentially cause death. The facts available on record also establishes that the accused in no manner tried to repeat the act of giving lathi blows, or was acting cruely in any manner. If the accused had any intention to cause murder, then he would have repeated the blows and also would have acted quite cruelly. It is pertinent to note that at the inception of incident, the present appellant was not a participating party as the quarrel was between Ranjeet and the deceased Bholu. If the accused had any intention to cause murder, then he would have repeated the blows and also would have acted quite cruelly. It is pertinent to note that at the inception of incident, the present appellant was not a participating party as the quarrel was between Ranjeet and the deceased Bholu. The accused appellant came in between from his house. If he had any intention to commit murder, he would have intervened in the incident with some, dangerous weapon instead of Bamboo lathi, the weapon of offence in present case. 12. In totality of the facts of the case, the crime committed is not a murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code but an offence of culpable homicide not amounting murder and that too without having any knowledge that the bodily injury given by him may cause death. As such the offence committed by him in no manner travels beyond an offence described under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. 13. In view of the discussion made above, we are inclined to accept this appeal in part. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 21.7.2005 is set aside to the extent it convicts the accused appellant Ramlal for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The sentence awarded too stands set aside. The accused appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, thus, is sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment, he is required to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Appeal partly allowed. *******