Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2373 (RAJ)

Satya Narain v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-01

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2017
ORDER : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the two accused-appellants namely Satya Narain and Laxman under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment and order dated 19.06.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 70/87 whereby the appellant No. 1 Satya Narain was convicted under Section 302 IPC and the appellant No. 2 Laxman was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed against them. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. At the commencement of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a photo-stat copy of death certificate of appellant No. 2 Laxman S/o Natha Ram, who died on 25.06.2015 The said death certificate has been issued by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Rajasthan. Hence, the appeal qua the accused-appellant Laxman is hereby dismissed as abated. 3. As per the facts of the case on 26.05.1987 at about 7 PM in the evening the complainant Shankar Meena (PW-1) submitted a verbal report at Police Station Rishabhdev alleging therein that yesterday he was working at his tailoring shop situated at Kagdar bus-stand and after closing the shop at about 5-5:30 PM when he reached at his house, his mother and sister-in-law Laxmi were in the agricultural field where Laxman, Satya Narain, Ramchandra, Kishna @ Nathu, Dhulki and Sita were throwing stones upon them and upon inquiring, his mother informed that your father has been killed. The complainant immediately went near layer ¼D;kajh½ where his father was lying in injured conditions. The complainant gave water to his father and his father told him that today when he along with Narayan and his son-in-law were going on the way, at that time Laxman and Satya Narain came there and gave lathi blow. It is specifically informed that Laxman inflicted lathi blow upon his neck and Satya Narain inflicted lathi blow upon his head and due to those injuries he fell down, thereafter upon insisting by Ramchandra and Kishna both the accused-appellants inflicted more injuries upon his body. As per the complainant Shanker Meena after giving the aforesaid information, his father died. 4. Therefore a request was made to take action against them. 5. As per the complainant Shanker Meena after giving the aforesaid information, his father died. 4. Therefore a request was made to take action against them. 5. The SHO, Police Station Rishabhdev registered the FIR No. 61/1987 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and commenced the investigation. After investigation the Police filed charge-sheet against six accused persons in the court of Muncif & Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara from where the case was committed to the Session Court Udaipur for trial. Later on the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur for trial. The learned trial court after framing charges under Section 148, 302 or 302/149 IPC proceeded to record prosecution evidence. From prosecution side, statements of 13 witnesses were recorded and thereafter statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C but they denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and stated that only to grab their land this false case has been registered against them. In defence one witness Ashok Kumar (DW-1) was produced by the accused-appellants. 6. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties finally decided the Sessions Case No. 70/87 vide judgment and order dated 19.06.1991 and acquitted the accused Natha Ram @ Kishna, Ramchandra, Smt. Dhulki @ Kamla & Smt. Sita from the charges levelled against them under Sections 148, 302 or 302/149 IPC so also acquitted the accused-appellants Satya Narain and Laxman from the charges levelled under Sections 148 & 149 IPC but convicted them for offence under Section 302, 302/34 IPC and passed the sentence mentioned above. 7. As mentioned above, during the pendency of the appeal the accused-appellant Laxman died, therefore, his appeal has been dismissed as abated. Now we are deciding the appeal of appellant Satya Narain who was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant raised the limited argument that the appellant is not challenging the incident but findings of guilt under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant because as per prosecution the FIR was filed against six person and charge-sheet was also filed against six persons. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant raised the limited argument that the appellant is not challenging the incident but findings of guilt under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant because as per prosecution the FIR was filed against six person and charge-sheet was also filed against six persons. Out of which four persons namely Natha Ram @ Kishna, Ramchandra, Smt. Dhulki @ Kamla & Smt. Sita were acquitted by the trial court and Laxman died during the pendency of the appeal and the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 302 IPC because as per allegation of the prosecution only one injury was caused by the accused-appellant Satya Narain to the deceased and there is no evidence of intention or motive, therefore, the findings of guilt recorded under Section 302 IPC may be altered to offence under Section 304 Part-I or II IPC or 325 IPC because as per the prosecution case, injury was inflicted by Lathi which is blunt weapon. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma in his statement adduced that postmortem of the dead body of deceased Homa was conducted by him upon the request made by SHO Rishabhdev when he was working as Medical Office at Upper Primary Health Centre, Righavhdev on 26.05.1987 As per the postmortem report, three injuries were found upon the body of the deceased. Out of which injury No. 1 was on parietal region whereas two other region were contusion and abrasion. According to Doctor, injury No. 1 was grievous in nature but two other injuries were simple in nature. All the injuries were recorded in postmortem report (Ex-A/5). In his cross-examination, it is accepted by Doctor that injury No. 1 was caused if any person hit to any wall. It is also argued that Keva (PW-5) the witness of recovery turned hostile. Roopsi (PW-8) turned hostile and did not support the investigation made upon the site of the occurrence. Nanji (PW-10) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly Vajja (PW-12) witness of recovery also turned hostile, therefore, the trial court acquitted four accused-persons against whom charge-sheet was filed. Roopsi (PW-8) turned hostile and did not support the investigation made upon the site of the occurrence. Nanji (PW-10) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly Vajja (PW-12) witness of recovery also turned hostile, therefore, the trial court acquitted four accused-persons against whom charge-sheet was filed. The only allegation against the appellant Satya Narain is that he has inflicted only one lathi blow upon the body of the deceased, therefore, the findings of guilt recorded under Section 302 IPC may kindly be altered to offence under Section 302 Par-I or II IPC because it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in absence of any evidence of motive or intention. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused-appellant remained in custody from 24.06.1987 to 19.06.1991 during the trial and thereafter his sentence was suspended on 01.11.1991 passed in SB Criminal Bail No. 342/1991. Therefore, obviously he remained in judicial custody right from 24.06.1987 to 11.11.1991 the date on which he was released after suspension of sentence. Therefore, the sentence may kindly be reduced from life imprisonment to sentence undergone by him. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused-appellant is not challenging the incident and his participation in the incident, therefore he is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him to alter the conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to 324 Part-I or II IPC because there is allegation of inflicting head injury by him to the deceased, therefore, the acquittal of four persons is not relevant so as to assess the entire evidence, therefore, he has prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as also record. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the evidence and findings of the learned trial court that the charge-sheet was filed against six persons but after trial only two persons were convicted namely Satya Narain and Laxman for offence under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC. Out of two persons, accused-appellant Laxman died during the pendency of the appeal. Now we are deciding the appeal of accused-appellant Satya Narain who has inflicted only one injury to the deceased that too by a blunt weapon. There is no evidence of motive or intention. Out of two persons, accused-appellant Laxman died during the pendency of the appeal. Now we are deciding the appeal of accused-appellant Satya Narain who has inflicted only one injury to the deceased that too by a blunt weapon. There is no evidence of motive or intention. More so allegations were levelled by the prosecution against six person. But the trial court acquitted the four person and only assessment is made against the accused-appellant Satya Narain for offence under Section 302 IPC that he has inflicted injury upon the head of the deceased. 12. To consider the prayer of the accused-appellant, we have perused the entire evidence of the case. More so the statement of Dr. Surender Kumar Sharma (PW-3). The said witness nowhere stated that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. The only statement is made that injury No. 1 which is stated to be caused upon the head of the deceased was grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma (PW-3) gave the following statements which reads as under:- ftjg }kjk odhy&eqfYte Jh lokbZ yky eksxjk%& izn'kZ ih&5 esa pksV uaŒ 1 ;fn dksbZ O;fDr fdlh ,sls LFkku ij flj ds cy [kM~Ms esa fxjs rFkk ogka dqvk [kqn jgk gks vkSj pV~Vkus fudyh gqbZ rks rks muds Vdjkus ls ;s pksVsa vk ldrh gSa blh izdkj ls ckdh dh pksVsa Hkh vk ldrh gSaA pksV uaŒ 1 ml gkyr esa Hkh vk ldrh gS ;fn dksbZ O;fDr ckgj fdlh pV~Vku ;k Bksl oLrq ls Vdjk tkos rks vk ldrh gSA bl lEHkkouk ls euk ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd ;fn e`rd dks rRdkyhu fpfdRlk lgk;rk nh tkrh rks og cp ldrk FkkA iqu% ijh{k.k & fuyA 13. Upon consideration of the entire facts and assessment of evidence, it is obvious that there is no allegation against the appellant for repeated blow. There is no evidence of motive or intention and as per opinion of Doctor the injury which is alleged to be caused by the accused-appellant was not dangerous to life. In view of above, we hold that the finding of guilt recorded under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant Satya Narain is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it is a fit case to alter the findings of conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. 14. In view of above, we hold that the finding of guilt recorded under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant Satya Narain is not sustainable in law. Therefore, it is a fit case to alter the findings of conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. 14. Admittedly the incident took-place in the year 1987 and the accused-appellant remained in jail till November, 1991, therefore at this stage we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to the sentence undergone by him. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The finding of conviction recorded against the accused-appellant Satya Narain for offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby altered to offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The accused-appellant Satya Narain remained in custody from 24.06.1987 to 11.11.1991, therefore, sentence passed against the appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, while considering the entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to pass an order of compensation against the accused-appellant. Consequently, it is ordered that the accused-appellant shall pay Rs. 75,000/- to the wife/legal heirs of the deceased within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which he shall serve the sentence for two years more. The accused-appellant Satya Narain is on bail, therefore he is not required to surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.