Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1929 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 77/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment for offence under section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. In short, the prosecution story as revealed from the complaint is that on 10.08.2010, Amba Lal Meena submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pratapgarh stating therein that he has five sons amongst whom he has done equal distribution of his property (land). His third son Ram Lal is staying separately for last 1015 years. Every other day, after consuming liquor, Ram Lal abuses him and demands more land from him. He, therefore, tried to counsel him a number of times but all in vain. Today i.e. on 10.08.2010, at around 5 O' Clock, he along with his son Jagdish, wife Sunder Bai, grandson Dinesh and nephew kanhaiya Lal were working on their field located near the pond, his son Ram Lal came there and started abusing him and his son Jagdish. He had a knife in his hand. He attacked them with knife and when his son Jagdish tried to intervene, he was given a knife blow in his chest by Ram Lal due to which Jagdish sustained a knife injury. Ram Lal ran away from the spot along with the knife. Thereafter, Jagdish became unconscious and he was taken to Pratapgarh Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. Jagdish died because of knife blow given by Ram Lal. 3. On this report, a formal FIR No. 301/2010 was registered and investigation was conducted. The police filed challan against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. 4. Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. The accused denied the same and preferred trial in the matter. 5. During the trial 12 witnesses were examined on the prosecution side and in all 18 documents were exhibited. 6. Thereafter, accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and was confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which he denied and submitted that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the matter. 5. During the trial 12 witnesses were examined on the prosecution side and in all 18 documents were exhibited. 6. Thereafter, accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and was confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which he denied and submitted that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the matter. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and the documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 14.05.2011. 8. For appreciating the facts in detail, we have gone through the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned public prosecutor. 9. PW-1 Amba Lal who is first informant, father of the deceased as well as accused and eye witness of the incident has stated in his statement that he has five sons and has distributed his property equally amongst all but discontended with the distribution, his son Ram Lal quarrels with him and demands for more land to be given to him despite the fact that he has already given him his share. On that day, while he along with his son Jagdish, wife Sunder Bai, grandson Dinesh and nephew Kanhaiya Lal were working in the field, the accused armed with knife came and attacked him after abusing. Jagdish tried to intervene between the accused and his father. In the process, he was given knife blow in his chest. Because of stab wound, Jagdish became unconscious, he was thereafter taken to Pratapgarh Hospital where he died. Ram Lal ran away from the spot. A report was lodged to the police under his signatures and he attested different memos of recovery and blood stained clothes, site map etc. prepared by the police during the process of investigation. In the cross examination, this witness has maintained whatever he stated in the examination-in-chief. 10. PW2 Sunder Bai, PW3 Dinesh and PW4 Kanhaiya Lal have deposed and narrated the incident in the same line and submitted that Jagdish was given knife blow in his chest by Ram Lal, when he intervened between the accused and Amba Lal, the accused was abusing his father. 10. PW2 Sunder Bai, PW3 Dinesh and PW4 Kanhaiya Lal have deposed and narrated the incident in the same line and submitted that Jagdish was given knife blow in his chest by Ram Lal, when he intervened between the accused and Amba Lal, the accused was abusing his father. It has also come in the statements that the accused appellant was not happy with the distribution of the property by Amba Lal and therefore, was demanding more land from his father. 11. PW6 Dr. Hitesh Joshi has stated in his statement that while he was posted as Medical Jurist in District Hospital, Pratapgarh, he conducted the postmortem of deceased Jagdish. He stated in his statement that on the chest near heart, the deceased had an incised wound of 1cm x 0.7 cm penetrating up to left chamber of the heart. 12. In his opinion, the cause of death was loss of blood due to the injury sustained which was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. 13. PW 7 Madan Lal son of Ratan Lal and PW8 Madan Lal S/o Shankar Lal are witnesses of recovery. They have been declared hostile. PW12 Surendra Singh is Investigating Officer who has stated in his statement that while working as Station House Officer at Police Station, Pratapgarh, he received a report under the signatures of Amba Lal on which he conducted the investigation after registering an FIR. During the investigation, he collected samples, prepared the site map and recorded the statements of the witnesses etc. in accordance with established provisions of law. 14. Postmortem report (Exp.6) reveals that stab wound 1cm x .07 cm deep on the left chamber of heart and cause of death is also mentioned as Hemorrhagic shock due to the injury of heart. The weapon of offence i.e. knife (Exp.14) was recovered on the information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence act was blood stained. FSL report shows presence of human blood on the shirt and knife. 15. Thus, the commission of the offence is proved beyond doubt. 16. The weapon of offence i.e. knife (Exp.14) was recovered on the information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence act was blood stained. FSL report shows presence of human blood on the shirt and knife. 15. Thus, the commission of the offence is proved beyond doubt. 16. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant restricted his submission only to the extent of converting the conviction from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-II of IPC and he submits that the statements of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 show that the accused went to the field of his father Ambalal abusing him demanding more share of land as he was not happy with the distribution made by his father amongst five brothers. On the field of Amba Lal, heated altercations took place between them and accused attacked his father then deceased Jagdish tried to intervene between the accused and his father, he was given a single blow by knife on his chest by the accused. In the process, Jagdish sustained this injury on his vital part resulting into his death. He further submits that it was unintentional and the blow was not repeated by the accused. He, therefore, submits that in these circumstances when the appellant was unhappy with the distribution of land by his father, he had heated altercation with his father, the deceased Jagdish tried to 'intervene' between them and there is only a single blow and a single injury with no repetition, the case falls in the purview of Part II of Section 304 IPC. Therefore, conviction under section 302 IPC is not sustainable in this case. 17. Learned trial Court was not right in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramesh Vithal Rao Thakre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1955) AIR (SC) 1453, wherein in para No. 7, it has been held:- "7. There is no denying the fact that one single injury was caused to the deceased by Ramesh when Rekha intervened to save her brother Ashok being assaulted. The primary target of Ramesh was Ashok, who got saved when Rekha received the injury on her chest. There is no denying the fact that one single injury was caused to the deceased by Ramesh when Rekha intervened to save her brother Ashok being assaulted. The primary target of Ramesh was Ashok, who got saved when Rekha received the injury on her chest. After causing the single injury to Rekha, it is the prosecution case itself, that Ramesh did not cause any other injury to Rekha nor even to Ashok, PW-1. From the evidence on the record and the established circumstances, it is not possible to say with certainty that the appellant intended to cause the death of Rekha. Even though the principle contained in Section 301 I.P.C. would be applicable to the case, it appears to us that the appellant can only be clothed with the knowledge that the injury which he was causing was likely to cause the death of Rekha but without any intention to cause her death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The offence, under the circumstances, would be one which would fall under Section 304Part II I.P.C". 18. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has submitted that the fatal blow has been given by the accused with a sharp edged weapon i.e. knife, the same cannot be said to be unintentional. He has further stated that prosecution has been able to prove that the accused is guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of adducing unflinching evidence and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. He further submits that there was motive of killing the deceased in the present case as the appellant being not satisfied with the distribution of property, went to the fields of complainant armed with a knife and thus went with the intention and preparation to cause fatal injury to the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of accused in killing the deceased Jagdish. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of conviction dated 14/05/2011 passed by learned trial Court may be upheld. 19. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of conviction dated 14/05/2011 passed by learned trial Court may be upheld. 19. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and admitted position which emerges from the statements of Ambalal who is the father of the deceased and accused, Smt. Sundar Bai who is the mother of the deceased and accused, Dinesh and Kanhaiyalal is that the appellant came to the field where all the four persons and deceased Jagdish were working and after hurling abuses to his father Ambalal, heated altercation took place. In this process when the deceased Jagdish tried to intervene, a single knife blow was given on the chest of the deceased Jagdish which resulted into his death. Out of four eye witnesses, three witnesses, namely, Ambalal, Smt. Sundar Bai and Kanhaiyalal are consistent on the point that the deceased sustained injury while intervening between Ambalal and Ramlal. It has also come in the statements as well as medical evidence that only single injury on the chest of deceased was there which was fatal. No injuries were suffered by anybody else other than the injury sustained by the deceased. It is also a fact that neither the injury assaulted to the deceased was repeated nor any other person sustained any injury at the hands of accused Ram Lal. 20. On the same lines in almost identical facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Vithal Rao Thakra's case (supra) has considered the aspect of only single injury having been caused with the knife but without intention to kill and has converted the conviction of 302 IPC into 304 Part-II IPC. 21. Therefore, we are of the view that since the appellant was dissatisfied with the distribution of property (land) by his father, he went on the field to quarrel with his father and press his demand for more land, heated altercation took place and when the deceased intervened, he sustained fatal injury. The chain of events depicts that there was no intention to cause death and, therefore, the case squarely falls in the ambit of part II of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302. 22. The chain of events depicts that there was no intention to cause death and, therefore, the case squarely falls in the ambit of part II of Section 304 IPC and not under Section 302. 22. In view of whatever stated above, we set aside the judgment dated 14/05/2011 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and instead we find him guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default of payment of fine, the appellant shall also further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.