Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2469 (RAJ)

Ramavatar Jat v. Dharampal Jat

2017-11-09

SABINA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Vide this order, above mentioned revision petition as well as appeal would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same judgment/order. 2. Dharampal, Balbir and Rajesh Kumar had faced trial under Sections 341, 323, 307, 326 and 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No. 304/1995 registered at Police Station Gudha Ghorji. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused had attacked the complainant party and two persons had suffered injuries from the complainant side. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Accused, when examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that in-fact, the complainant party had inflicted injuries on their person. Injury reports had already been proved on record. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. 5. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 28.10.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of the accused under Sections 326, 325 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused were acquitted qua charge framed against them under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, revision petition has been filed by the complainant that the accused were liable to be convicted and sentenced qua offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, whereas the accused have filed the appeal seeking their acquittal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Accused were liable to be acquitted qua offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the person, who had conducted the X-ray examination of the injured, had not been examined. As per DW-2, condition of injured Ramavatar was not critical at the time of his admission. Accused have been rightly acquitted qua offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In-fact, the accused had also reported the matter to the police that they had been inflicted injuries by the complainant party. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that as per the medical opinion, injury No.1 on the person of injured Ramavatar was declared dangerous to life. Hence, accused were liable to be convicted and sentenced qua offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The version putforth by the accused with regard to the infliction of injuries on their person by the complainant party has not been believed. Hence, accused were liable to be convicted and sentenced qua offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The version putforth by the accused with regard to the infliction of injuries on their person by the complainant party has not been believed. Moreover, as per the medico legal report of the accused available on record, they had suffered abrasions. The said injuries could be self inflicted to create a cross-version. 8. PW-2 Ramavatar deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 11.30. A.M. his father had gone to attend inauguration of a shop and was returning home after attending the function. Dharampal, Balbir and Rajesh Kuamr started giving beatings to his father. He was working in the fields on a tractor in the nearby fields. On hearing alarm, he reached the spot. When he reached the spot, Rajesh Kumar gave a Gandasi blow on his head and Dharampal gave a stick blow on his right hip joint, whereas Balbir also gave a stick blow on his person. He was removed to the hospital for treatment. 9. PW-4 Sunda Ram corroborated the statement of PW-2. He further deposed that accused Balbir gave a stick blow on his head. Rajesh Kumar had given a Gandasi blow on his person and as a result, he had fallen down. 10. PW-3 Pooran Mal, PW-6 Ami Lal and PW-10 Buti Ram have corroborated the statements of the injured witnesses. 11. PW-8 Dr. M.G. Gupta deposed that on 05.11.1999, he had medically examined injured Ramavatar and Sunda Ram and proved their reports Exhibit-P-17 and Exhibit-P-23. As per Exhibit-P-17 injured Ramavatar has suffered following injuries:- "1. Incised wound 3cm x 1/2 cm x skull bone deep on right posterior parietal region of scalp. Margins of wound are clear cut and angle view are cuts bleeding from wound is present. 2. Abrasion 1cm x 1 cm over mid region of spine of right scapula, dark clotted blood present. 3. Abrasion 1cm x 1cm of lower and lateral border of right scapula, clotted blood over wound present. 4. Abrasion 1cm x cm on dorsal aspect of forehead right in middle 1/3rd region present. 5. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on outer lower and lateral aspect of right knee. 6. 3. Abrasion 1cm x 1cm of lower and lateral border of right scapula, clotted blood over wound present. 4. Abrasion 1cm x cm on dorsal aspect of forehead right in middle 1/3rd region present. 5. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on outer lower and lateral aspect of right knee. 6. Bruise 6 cm x 1 1/2 cm red in colour over lower and lateral quadrant of right hip with tenderness over right hip joint." As per Exhibit-P-23 injured Sunda Ram had suffered following injuries:- "1. Abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm over socket of right upper canine tooth with a corresponding contusion of 1 1/2 cm x 1cm size on muscular surface of right side of upper lip. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep on right of lower lip. 3. Contusion 4cm x 3cm of dorsolateral aspect of let arm in lower 1/3rd region. 4. Complained of pain on left side of chest just above lower costal margins. On examination, no external injury visible." 12. PW-8 further deposed that as per the X-ray report, injured Ramavatar had suffered compound fracture of right parietal bone and fracture of right femur bone. He had declared injury No.1 on injured Ramavatar as dangerous to life and injury No.6 as grievous in nature vide Exhibit-P-18. He proved the X-ray plates Exhibit-P-19 and Exhibit-P-20. 13. DW-1 Dr. Vinod Kumar Gupta deposed that on 05.11.1999 injured Ramavatar was admitted in the hospital. He had suffered injury on his right side of hip and right hip joint. He had given initial treatment to the injured. It also transpired that the injured had suffered fracture of tibia bone. 14. Accused Dharam Pal appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and deposed that Ramavatar, Pooran Mal and Mukesh had come to their house and had inflicted injuries on his person and on the person of Balbir and Rajesh Kumar. 15. In the present case, ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. As per the ocular version, accused had inflicted injuries on the person of injuries Ramavatar and Sunda Ram. As per the medico legal reports of the injured, Ramavatar had suffered six injuries, whereas injured Sunda Ram had suffered four injuries. Injury No. 1 on the person of injured Ramavatar was declared dangerous to life, whereas injury No. 6 on the person of Ramavatar was declared grievous in nature. As per the medico legal reports of the injured, Ramavatar had suffered six injuries, whereas injured Sunda Ram had suffered four injuries. Injury No. 1 on the person of injured Ramavatar was declared dangerous to life, whereas injury No. 6 on the person of Ramavatar was declared grievous in nature. Injured Sunda Ram had suffered simple injuries. So far as the version putforth by accused is concerned, that they had been inflicted injuries by the complainant party, the same was not believed by the Investigating Agency. Accused have proved on record their medico legal reports Exhibit-D-7 to Exhibit-D-9. A perusal of the same, reveals that the accused had suffered abrasion and the said injuries were declared simple in nature with blunt weapon. Accused Dharampal and injured Bali Devi had suffered one abrasion each, whereas injured Rajesh Kumar had suffered three abrasions and swelling on his left palm. Doctor, who had medically examined the said injured, was not examined by the accused. Hence, it is probable that the injuries on the person of the accused party could be self suffered to create a counter version. However, the version putforth by the accused was not believed by the Investigating Agency. In these circumstances, the evidence led by the accused in their defence fails to rebut the prosecution evidence. The fact that person who had conducted the X-ray examination of injured Ramavatar has not been examined during trial, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case as PW-8 Dr. M.G. Gupta has duly proved the report given by him after examining the X-ray report that the injury No. 1 on the person of injured Ramavatar was dangerous to life and injury No. 6 on his person was grievous in nature. 16. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Trial Court erred in holding that offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not made out against the accused. Rather from the ocular as well as medical evidence on record, it was duly established that offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 had been committed by accused Rajesh Kumar and accused Dharampal and Balbir had committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 17. Accordingly, revision petition filed by the complainant is allowed. 17. Accordingly, revision petition filed by the complainant is allowed. Accused are convicted under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with other offences with regard to which Trial Court has ordered the conviction of the accused. 18. The next question that requires consideration is as to imposition of sentence on the accused with regard to offence under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 19. Occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1999. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, accused Rajesh Kumar is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment qua offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accused Dharampal and Balbir are sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment qua offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused are also sentenced to pay a fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Fine of Rs. 5,000/- each deposited by the accused be disbursed to injured Ramavatar forthwith. Conviction and sentence of the accused as ordered by the Trial Court under Section 326, 325 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Consequently, appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.