Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1543 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-16

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 395 dated 10.10.2011 (Exhibit-P-36) registered at Police Station Dei, District Bundi for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') on a complaint (Exhibit-P-1) moved by Kuldeep Singh. 2. Prosecution story in brief as per the FIR was that on 10.10.2011 at about 7.30 a.m., complainant was taking a bath at the government handpump. In the meantime, Shankar Lal came there and gave an injury on his head with a Parani (agricultural implement). Complainant started bleeding. Mohan Singh, father of the complainant left to talk to Shankar Lal. Mohan Singh met Shankar Lal, Kamlesh, Laddu Lal, Heera Lal, Badri Lal, wife of Badri Lal and wife of Shankar Lal near the tubewell of Shankar Lal. All the said persons were armed with Axe and Gandasi and they attacked Mohan Singh. Shankar Lal gave a Gandasi blow on the neck of Mohan Singh. The other family members of Shankar Lal also inflicted injuires to Mohan Singh. Pushpendra Singh and Bunty @ Bhanwar Singh also saw the occurrence. Mohan Singh was removed to the hospital for treatment. Mohan Singh succumbed to his injuries during treatment. There was a land dispute between the complainant and Shankar Lal owned by the State. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused Shankar Lal, Kamlesh, Badri Lal, Kesar Bai and Rekha Bai. Accused Laddu Lal was summoned by the trial Court on an application moved by the prosecution under section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr. P.C'.) vide order dated 17.08.2012. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 307, 148, 302/149, 323, 325/149 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty seven witnesses during trial. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 prayed that they had been falsely involved in this case. Rather, it was pleaded that they had been attacked by the complainant party. In-fact, Kamlesh had sat down in order to save himself and the sword had hit Mohan Singh on his neck. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. Rather, it was pleaded that they had been attacked by the complainant party. In-fact, Kamlesh had sat down in order to save himself and the sword had hit Mohan Singh on his neck. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. Trial Court vide judgment dated 03.04.2017 ordered the acquittal of accused Badri Lal, Kesar Bai, Rekha Bai and Laddu LaL of the charges framed against them. So far as the appellants Shankar Lal and Kamlesh are concerned, they were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court qua offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 302/34 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. In-fact, no specific overt act was attributed to appellant Kamlesh in the FIR. As per the FIR, complainant had also witnessed the infliction of injuries by accused Shankar Lal to Mohan Singh, whereas, in his examination-in-chief druing trial, he has stated that he could not witness as to who had inflicted injuries on his father as the occurrence had occurred behind the wall. Place of occurrence has been changed during investigation of the case. Shankar Lal had suffered a fracture of his arm prior to the incident-in-question. Hence, it was not possible for him to have inflicted injuries with a Gandasi on the person of the deceased. Injuries on the person of the appellants' side had not been explained by the prosecution. 7. Learned State counsel who is assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that, although, appellants had set up a cross version in this case, but the same was not established during investigation and a negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency in this regard. Kamlesh is a habitual offender and after the decision of this case, he again inflicted injuries to the complainant party and has been convicted and sentenced under Section 336, 149, 341 IPC vide judgment/order dated 02.06.2018. 9. Present case relates to murder of Mohan Singh and injuries suffered by complainant Kuldeep Singh. Thus, the case rests on eye-witness account. 10. Kamlesh is a habitual offender and after the decision of this case, he again inflicted injuries to the complainant party and has been convicted and sentenced under Section 336, 149, 341 IPC vide judgment/order dated 02.06.2018. 9. Present case relates to murder of Mohan Singh and injuries suffered by complainant Kuldeep Singh. Thus, the case rests on eye-witness account. 10. Complainant Kuldeep Singh while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed that on 10.12.2011, he had gone to take a bath at the Government handpump at about 7/7.30 a.m. Kamlesh came on a tractor and started ploughing the government passage. He told Shankar Lal that he should not plough the Government passage. Shankar Lal objected to this. Then, Kamlesh stopped the tractor and Shankar Lal gave a blow with a Parani on his head and as a result, he started bleeding. Shankar Lal inflicted another injury on his left shoulder and he fell down. Then, Kamlesh gave two stick blows on his right foot. Rekha Bai and Nirmala were also present there. He gave information to his father Mohan Singh on his mobile phone regrading the occurrence. Bunty @ Bhanwar Singh along with Pushpendra Singh reached the spot. His father along with Seema Kanwar and Ratan Kanwar reached the spot. His father went towards the house of Badri Lal near the tubewell. Shankar Lal, Kamlesh, Laddu Lal, Badri Lal, wife of Badri Lal and wife of Shankar Lal encircled his father. Shankar Lal was armed with an Axe. Kamlesh was armed with an Axe. Badri Lal was armed with a stick. The said persons inflicted injuries to his father. He could not see the occurrence as there was a wall in-between. Then, the said persons brought his father towards his side and he saw that his father had suffered injuries on his neck and there was a cut on his left cheek. His father was removed to the hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries. 11. PW-1 Bunty @ Bhanwar Singh and PW-6 Pushpendra Singh have corroborated the statement of the complainant and have further deposed that Mohan Singh was dragged by the accused in the house of Shankar Lal. Shankar Lal gave an Axe blow on the neck of Mohan Singh. Kamlesh gave an Axe blow on the left shoulder of Mohan Singh. 11. PW-1 Bunty @ Bhanwar Singh and PW-6 Pushpendra Singh have corroborated the statement of the complainant and have further deposed that Mohan Singh was dragged by the accused in the house of Shankar Lal. Shankar Lal gave an Axe blow on the neck of Mohan Singh. Kamlesh gave an Axe blow on the left shoulder of Mohan Singh. Laddu Lal gave an Axe blow on the left Cheek of Mohan Singh. Badri Lal gave a stick blow on the back of Mohan Singh. Kesar Bai and Rekha Bai gave kick blows to Mohan Singh. 12. Thus, as per the eye-witness account, appellant Shankar Lal had given an Axe blow on the neck of Mohan Singh, whereas, appellant Kamlesh had given an Axe blow on the left sholder of Mohan Singh. Appellant Shankar Lal had also inflicted injuries with Parani to complainant Kuldeep Singh. 13. PW-22 Dr. Brijmohan Malav has proved the post-mortem examination report Exhibit-P-40 with regard to deceased Mohan Singh. As per post-mortem examination report, deceased had suffered one cut wound on his left cheek and had suffered one cut wound on his left sholder and had suffered one cut wound on his neck. All the said injuries were described to be antemortem in nature. Cause of death of the deceased was due to shock on account of excessive hemorrhage. The said witness has also deposed that on 10.12.2011, he had medically examined injured Kuldeep Singh and the said injured had suffered one injury on his head and there was a swelling on his right foot. Injury on his head was found to be simple in nature, whereas, injury on his foot was declared grevious in nature after receipts of X-ray report. 14. Thus, the eye-witness account is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The police officials examined during trial have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by them. 15. During investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by appellant Shankar Lal, one Parani and one Axe were recovered. So far as appellant Kamlesh is concerned, on the basis of his disclosure statement, one Bamboo stick and one Axe were recovered. So far as the statements of eye-witnesses with regard to the manner of occurrence are concerned, their statements being natural inspire confidence. So far as appellant Kamlesh is concerned, on the basis of his disclosure statement, one Bamboo stick and one Axe were recovered. So far as the statements of eye-witnesses with regard to the manner of occurrence are concerned, their statements being natural inspire confidence. Eye-witness PW-1 Bunty @ Bhanwar Singh, PW-6 Pushpendra Singh and injured Kuldeep Singh PW-2 were cross-examined at length, but there testimonies with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the crime could not be shaken. 16. As per Exhibit-D-12, appellant Shankar Lal had suffered fracture of left radius bone before the present incident. However, the said fact in itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellant Shankar Lal was unable to inflict injury with the weapon used by him at the time of crime by using his right hand. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant was a left hander. 17. Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 18. Trial Court has, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of appellant Shankar Lal for offence under Sections 323, 302/34 IPC and appellant Kamlesh for offence under Sections 325, 302/34 IPC. 19. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellants as ordered by the Court below are upheld.