Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Lal Singh @ Leelu v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-21

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being decided at this stage itself. 2. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge had convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 304 part II IPC and sentenced them as under :- 3. For offence under Section 147 IPC, one year of rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 148 IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment; for offence under Section 323 IPC, for six months of rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge has convicted Lal Singh, appellant No.1, for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC simpliciter and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and has imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a term of six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge has also convicted Jagdish appellant - No.2, Smt Lila Devi - appellant No.3 and Satyveer – appellant No.4 for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2007, the complainant, Chote Lal (P.W.5), submitted a report wherein he claimed that on 25.03.2007, around 3:30 PM, the family members of Lal Singh were trying to place the remaining part of the mustered crop on the land belonging to Sher Singh in order to show their possession of the land. Sher Singh protested about their activities. Therefore, Lal Singh, Jagdish and other family members assaulted the complainant party. On the basis of the said report, a FIR, FIR No.46/2007, was recorded for offences under Sections 143, 323 and 308 IPC. However, during the course of investigation, Sher Singh expired. Therefore, offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were added. After the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants, while filing the charge-sheet against Mahesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar before the Juvenile Court. The appellants were charged for offences under Sections 147, 149, 302 or 302/149, 323 or 323/149, and 201 IPC. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses, and exhibited fifty-six documents. After the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants, while filing the charge-sheet against Mahesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar before the Juvenile Court. The appellants were charged for offences under Sections 147, 149, 302 or 302/149, 323 or 323/149, and 201 IPC. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses, and exhibited fifty-six documents. The appellants have examined a single witness, and submitted two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 5. Mr. Suresh Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that a bare perusal of the testimony of Chote Lal (P.W.5) clearly reveals that both the parties are neighbours of each other. Ten years prior to the alleged occurrence, there was some land dispute between the parties. According to Chote Lal, the dispute led to certain litigations. However, the litigations ended with the parties reaching a compromise. Ever since then, there was no dispute between the parties. According to him, on the fateful day, Smt. Lila Devi W/o Jagdish was trying to place the residuary part of the mustered crop on the land belonging to Sher Singh. Therefore, the entire occurrence had taken place on a trifle issue. Moreover, even according to the complainant, Chote Lal, the appellants were not armed with any lethal weapon. But, they were armed with only lathis. Therefore, they did not have the intention to kill, but merely had intention to hurt Sher Singh. Moreover, according to he complainant, Lal Singh had caused a single injury on the head of Sher Singh. Thus, his intention is not to kill Sher Singh. Moreover, it cannot be said that he would have the knowledge that by causing a single injury with a lathi, death is likely to be caused. Therefore, the offence under Section 304 Part II is not made out. 6. Secondly, Lal Singh has served four and a half years of his sentence. Even if the prosecution case were taken to be true, even then the sentence should be reduced to as undergone. 7. Lastly, the sentences of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were suspended by this Court. The members of both the families are living peacefully and no untoward incident has taken place between them. Even if the prosecution case were taken to be true, even then the sentence should be reduced to as undergone. 7. Lastly, the sentences of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were suspended by this Court. The members of both the families are living peacefully and no untoward incident has taken place between them. Therefore, considering the fact that appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are living peacefully in the society,the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should be given to them. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have contended that considering the fact that the single injury on the head caused the fracture of the third cervical vertebra, of Sher Singh, the injury on the head must have been caused with such a force as to brake the third cervical vertebra. Therefore, at least, the knowledge can be attributed to Lal Singh. Thus, the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is clearly made out. As far as appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have not opposed that they are living peacefully in society after having their sentences suspended by this Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. According to the testimonies of Virendra Singh (P.W.2), Ghasiram (P.W.4) and Chote Lal (P.W.5), the eye-witnesses, Lal Singh had struck Sher Singh over his head with a lathi. Their testimonies have not been shaken in the cross-examination. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the veracity of the testimonies. 11. According to the Dr. Radheshyam Sharma (P.W.10), the doctor who was the member of the medical board which conducted the post-mortem, the cause of death was coma caused by the injury on the head coupled with the fracture of the spinal cord at cervical No.3. In his testimony, he further tells the Court that the fracture of cervical No.3 was due to the injury caused on the head. Thus, clearly the injury which was caused by Lal Singh was sufficient in the ordinary nature of course to cause the death of Sher Singh. Considering the fact that cervical No.3 was fractured due to the impact of the injury on the head, obviously, the injury was caused with a great force. Thus, clearly the injury which was caused by Lal Singh was sufficient in the ordinary nature of course to cause the death of Sher Singh. Considering the fact that cervical No.3 was fractured due to the impact of the injury on the head, obviously, the injury was caused with a great force. Hence, the knowledge that the death is likely to be caused by forcefully using the lathi can certainly be attributed to Lal Singh. Therefore, the offence under Section 304 Part II is clearly made out against Lal Singh. 12. However, considering the fact that both the parties are neighbours, considering the fact that the occurrence had taken place over a trifle matter, considering the fact that appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are living peacefully with the complainant party, considering the fact that appellant No.1 has served four and half years of his sentence, this Court reduces the sentences to as undergone. 13. While allowing this appeal, this Court directs that Lal Singh @ Leelu S/o Daya Kishan, appellant No.1, be released forthwith, if he is not warranted in any other case. 14. As far as Jagdish – appellant No.2, Smt. Lila Devi – appellant No.3, and Satyveer – appellant No.4, are concerned they have been convicted for offences under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. Admittedly, they are living peacefully as members of the society, and they have not done any act to disrupt the even tempo of life. Admittedly, this is the first offence committed by them. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court grants them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for maintaining peace and tranquility for the period of three years.