Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1726 (RAJ)

Melia @ Maniya v. State of Rajasthan

2015-09-30

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. By the judgment impugned dated 10.6.2011 learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur recorded conviction of the accused appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 26.5.2008 Shri Meena son of Dhatia orally informed at police station Mandwa that at about five years ago his nephew Kantu son of Alia had some quarrel with Bhoja. To resolve the issue a caste panchayat was called and that awarded compensation in a tune of Rs. 45,000/- to Bhoja. A sum of Rs. 18,000/- was paid by the family of Kantu in meeting of the caste panchayat itself with an assurance to pay the remaining amount in near future. Melia and Navla (both the accused) sons of Bhoja were regularly making demand for the remaining amount of compensation. Alia, father of Kantu, assured them for making the payment but for certain reasons that was not satisfied. On the date of incident Melia and Navla demanded the money from Alia and that erupted a quarrel between them. On knowing about quarrel erupted Meena rushed to the spot of occurrence where he found his brother Alia dead. Smt. Dhapu daughter of Navla, resident of Valoria, who witnessed the entire incident, disclosed that Malia and Navla were beating Alia. Malia had a pit digging iron rod in his hands and Navla was armed with a stick. 3. On basis of the information given a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and during course of investigation the accused appellants were arrested. At the instance of accused Melia a pit digging iron rod was recovered and at the instance of accused Navla recovery of a stick was made. The investigating agency sent both the articles for their serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The corpus of deceased was subjected to an autopsy and as per the postmortem report Ex.P/17 the cause of death of Alia was haemorrhagic shock, massive internal bleeding resulting into a shock. 4. The investigating agency sent both the articles for their serological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The corpus of deceased was subjected to an autopsy and as per the postmortem report Ex.P/17 the cause of death of Alia was haemorrhagic shock, massive internal bleeding resulting into a shock. 4. After completing the investigation a police report as per Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the competent court and the case being sessions triable was committed to the court of Sessions. The Sessions court after hearing the accused appellants framed and read over a charge against the accused appellants for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same trial commenced as desired. 5. During the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 19 witnesses out of whom Smt. Dhapu (PW-2) and Fagna (PW-3) were cited as eye witnesses. Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-12) adduced the medical evidence and Shri Dungar Singh (PW-13), Station House Officer, Police Station Mandwa narrated all the facts relating to the steps taken during the course of investigation, he being the investigating officer. An opportunity was given to the accused appellants to explain all the adverse and incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and while availing that the same was termed as false and concocted with explanation that they were falsely implicated in the case and as a matter of fact beating was given to their father Bhoja by the family members of deceased. In defence testimony of Shri Kheta Pargi (DW-1) was examined. 6. Learned trial court after examining the entire evidence available and hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused appellants and learned Public Prosecutor held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, accordingly the convicted was recorded. 7. In appeal, while challenging the conviction the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that even by accepting the prosecution case in totality the offence said to be committed by the accused appellants does not travel beyond an offence described under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code. 8. 7. In appeal, while challenging the conviction the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that even by accepting the prosecution case in totality the offence said to be committed by the accused appellants does not travel beyond an offence described under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, states that causing a head injury with the aid of iron rod is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accused persons were intending to kill Alia and as such their conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code is justified. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and also examined the record available. 10. As per the medical evidence available, the deceased Alia had a single injury on his head. This injury and excessive bleeding from that was the cause of death. In view of it there is no doubt about homicidal death of Alia. The involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question also stands established in view of the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses, but the principal issue before this Court is to examine the nature of offence i.e. committed by the appellants. 11. Smt. Dhapu (PW-2), who was present at the spot of occurrence at the time of incident, stated that on the fateful day she went to Kotda Cant at 08:00 AM. At that time her brother-in-law Alia had some quarrel with Melia and Navla. Melia who was having a pit digging iron rod in his hand gave a blow to Alia as a result to that he fell down and Navla then gave a stick blow to Alia. As per this witness the incident was not pre-planned but occurred due to some quarrel taken place at that moment only. 12. As per Fagna (PW-3), he was present at the spot of occurrence as he was purchasing bidi from a shop. As per this witness he saw Melia giving a blow on the head of Alia with the aid of an iron rod. He also stated that a stick blow was given by Navla. 13. An important witness is Shri Meena (PW-14) who though is not an eye witness but arrived at the spot of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. This witness disclosed existence of dispute between the parties. He also stated that a stick blow was given by Navla. 13. An important witness is Shri Meena (PW-14) who though is not an eye witness but arrived at the spot of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. This witness disclosed existence of dispute between the parties. As per this witness, Kantu son of deceased Alia gave beating to Bhoja, father of the accused appellants and to resolve that issue a caste panchayat met and that awarded a compensation of Rs. 45,000/- to Bhoja. Out of the amount aforesaid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was paid in the meeting itself but remaining amount was due. Melia and Navla were demanding that amount regularly. On the date of incident it was conveyed to him by Smt. Dhapu (PW-2) that Melia and Navla entered into a quarrel with Alia and during the course of that Melia caused a head injury and that resulted into death of Alia. 14. The facts stated by these witnesses indicate that there was some quarrel between the deceased and the accused appellants and during the course of that a head injury was caused. 15. As per the medical evidence available on record, deceased was having a single injury on his head and that was the cause of death. The injury aforesaid is assigned to accused Melia. No evidence is available on record to establish that accused Melia was having any intention to kill Alia, though he may be having a knowledge that a blow by an iron rod may cause death. The incident also occurred due to heat of moment. 16. In totality, the facts available on record indicates commission of an offence described under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code by accused Melia. 17. So far as accused Navla is concerned, there is no allegation against him that he caused any fatal blow to deceased Alia. Whatever evidence available against him i.e. only to the effect that he was armed with a stick and gave a blow from that on the back of deceased. The medical evidence is silent in this regard. In view of it the conviction of this accused is not at all well founded. 18. In view of whatever stated above, this appeal deserves acceptance in part. Accordingly, the same is partly allowed. 19. Accused Navla is acquitted from the charge of Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence is silent in this regard. In view of it the conviction of this accused is not at all well founded. 18. In view of whatever stated above, this appeal deserves acceptance in part. Accordingly, the same is partly allowed. 19. Accused Navla is acquitted from the charge of Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Let he be released from State custody forthwith, if not otherwise required. The conviction of accused Melia for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code is substituted by conviction under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine imposed, he shall be liable to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment in addition to the sentence awarded.