Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 211 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Narayan Lal S/o Kesaram Ji

2017-01-17

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant State of Rajasthan under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 01st of November, 2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi (trial court) in Session Case No.25/2011, whereby lesser punishment has been imposed against the accused respondents, viz. Narayan Lal, Shankerlal and Bhura Ram, and they have been convicted for the offence u/s 304 Part II and 323 of IPC while acquitting them from the offence under Sections 148 and 341 of IPC. 2. As per prosecution case, an FIR No.50/2011 was registered at Police Station Swaroopganj, on the basis of 'Parcha-Bayan' of under treatment injured, Hona Ram, at Trauma Centre, Abu Road, in which injured, Hona Ram alleged that on 21.03.2011 at about 03.00 PM his son, namely, Dhannaram, was standing in front of house of Sarpanch, Ms. Bhawna Garg, situated at Maghwalon-Ki-Gali. At that time, Amra Ram, Kesa Ram, Teka, Narsa, Sama, Praveen, Narayan, Bhura Ram having "Lathis" in their hand, came with common intention in order to kill his son, Dhanna Ram, and gave beatings with "Lathis" with black and blue. Due to those injuries caused to Dhanna Ram, he made hue and cries and at that time, complainant along with his wife and son, namely, Lala Ram, and Pappu reached on the spot and tried to save him. However, they too were assaulted by the accused persons and thereafter the accused ran away. As per complainant, this incident was witnessed by his neighbourers also. 3. The complainant brought his son, Dhanna Ram, to Trauma Centre, Abu Road for treatment, where looking his critical condition, his son was referred for better treatment at Mehsana. The injured was taken to Mehsana in vehicle along with Lala Ram and Pappu, but he died in between the way. According to allegations of the complainant, there was litigation going on in between Dhanna Ram and accused persons, therefore, they killed his son. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents for the offences u/s 148, 341, 323 and 302/149 of IPC. 5. According to allegations of the complainant, there was litigation going on in between Dhanna Ram and accused persons, therefore, they killed his son. 4. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents for the offences u/s 148, 341, 323 and 302/149 of IPC. 5. At the conclusion of trial, accused respondents were convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 01.11.2014 for the offences u/s 304 Part II and 323 of IPC but they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them u/s 148, 341, 302 and 302/149 of IPC. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the sentence awarded to the accused respondents for committing offence u/s 304 Part II and 323 of IPC, deserves to be enhanced looking to the seriousness of the offence being committed by them, therefore, this appeal may kindly be allowed and the sentence may kindly be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the accused respondents on the other hand submitted that for the same incident a cross FIR No. 51/2011 was registered by the accused party, in which after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused of complainant side, including complainant himself, for the offences u/s 341, 323 and 326/34 of IPC, and therefore, no interference is called for the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan may kindly be dismissed. 8. After considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it is admitted fact that for the same incident, FIR No.50/2011 was filed by the complainant of this case and FIR No.51/2011 was registered at Police Station Swaroopganj, upon a complaint filed by the accused party against the complainant's family, in which after investigation charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, obviously it cannot be said that there was any intention of the respondent to kill the deceased and there is no specific allegation against any of the accused that intentionally injuries were caused by them. 9. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant State of Rajasthan for enhancement of the sentence, is hereby dismissed. 10. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this appeal will not affect the merits of S.B. Cri. 9. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant State of Rajasthan for enhancement of the sentence, is hereby dismissed. 10. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this appeal will not affect the merits of S.B. Cri. Appeal No. 808/2014 filed by accused, Narayanlal, Shankarlal and Bhura Lal, against the judgment impugned, whereby they were convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s 304 Part II and 323 of IPC.