Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 603 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State

2019-02-20

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present Jail Appeal was received from Jail and was registered as D.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No.977/2012. The same was admitted on 07.01.2013 by this court. The representative appeal challenging the judgement of conviction filed by the accused Ram Singh was registered as D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1061/2012. The representative Appeal was time barred by 16 days and therefore, the same was disposed of by this court on 07.01.2013. The instant criminal Jail appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgement and order of conviction dated 13.09.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.140/2010) whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In Default 341 IPC One month simple imprisonment 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act Life imprisonment 1000/- 02 months simple imprisonment 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted are that a report was lodged by Ummed Ram (Ex.P/10) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Khinwara, District Pali on 18.10.2010. In the report, he stated that he used to go to Kareli for earning his livelihood. On 18.10.2010 at around 8:00 am in the morning when he reached Tokarla near Kareli river, Ram Singh S/o Garjidan intercepted him and forced him to go to his well. When he reached there, Ram Singh assaulted him with a bamboo stick due to which he received injuries on his head, shoulders and legs. He raised a hue and cry whereupon, Narayan Lal S/o Deva Ji saw his plight and informed his son Hema Ram. Hema Ram and Bharat came to the place of the incident and saw Ram Singh indulged in the assault. Thereafter, Ram Singh ran away from the place of the incident. Hema Ram and Bharat took him to Khinwara Hospital for treatment. The reason for assault was that 5-6 months ago, Ram Singh had misbehaved with a lady of his community and he was aware of that incident, therefore, after intercepting him, the accused assaulted him. Ummed Ram affixed his thumb impression on this report. The report was submitted on 18.10.2010 at around 1:20 pm at Government Hospital, Khinwara District Pali. 3. The reason for assault was that 5-6 months ago, Ram Singh had misbehaved with a lady of his community and he was aware of that incident, therefore, after intercepting him, the accused assaulted him. Ummed Ram affixed his thumb impression on this report. The report was submitted on 18.10.2010 at around 1:20 pm at Government Hospital, Khinwara District Pali. 3. On this report, a formal F.I.R. No.107/2010 was registered at Police Station Khinwara District Pali for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC against the accused-appellant. The police started the investigation. Ummed Ram passed away on 20.10.2010 due to his injury, therefore, offence under section 302 IPC was added to the case. 4. After conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 341, 302 of IPC & section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 341, 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to the charge sheeted accused, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/16 documents were in support of its case exhibited. Three documents i.e. Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3) were exhibited in defence. 6. The accused-appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was falsely implicated and that he was innocent. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 341, 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide judgement dated 13.09.2012. Hence this appeal. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused( 4 of 8) [CRLA-977/2012] appellant beyond the shadow of doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Kalu Ram Bhati, Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused( 4 of 8) [CRLA-977/2012] appellant beyond the shadow of doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of PW3 Hema Ram and PW4 Bharat Kumar is not worth reliance as they are interested witnesses and they wanted to falsely implicate the appellant in this case by hook or crook. Narayan Lal (PW.5) is a chance witness who was actually employed at Ahmedabad but it is stated that on the fateful day, he was present at Tokarla where his in-laws were residing. Presence of Narayan Lal (PW5) on the spot is highly doubtful and he is a planted witness just to implicate the appellant in the present case, therefore, his testimony should be discarded. 9. He further argues that as per the statement of Dr. Narpat Singh (PW.14), five injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased. The Injury No.2 & 4 are the same showing fracture in parietal bone. No fracture is mentioned in injury No.1 & 3 and such injuries could be caused, if a person fell from height. He, therefore, submits that possibility of such injuries being sustained from an accident cannot be ruled out. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the alleged offences deserves to be set aside. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae further contends that since there is only one fatal injury on the vital part of the deceased and other injuries are on non vital parts, therefore, conviction of the accused appellant should be converted from offence under section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-I IPC by modifying the impugned judgement dated 13.09.2012. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that testimony of PW3 Hema Ram, PW4 Bharat Kumar and PW5 Narayan Lal clearly shows that the appellant assaulted Ummed Ram with a bamboo stick and in all five injuries were sustained by the deceased Ummed Ram. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these prosecution witnesses merely because PW3 Hema Ram and PW4 Bharat Kumar are related to the deceased and PW5 Narayan Lal is a chance witness. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these prosecution witnesses merely because PW3 Hema Ram and PW4 Bharat Kumar are related to the deceased and PW5 Narayan Lal is a chance witness. 12. It is further contended that Parcha Bayan of deceased Ummed Ram gives complete details of the incident clearly mentioning therein that the accused appellant assaulted him with a bamboo stick. Since on the report of Ummed Ram, the FIR was registered and thereafter during the treatment, Ummed Ram passed away, the Parcha Bayan of Ummed Ram can very well be treated as dying declaration. Further recovery of bamboo stick (Ex.P/8) on the information given by the accused appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act and postmortem report (Ex.P/15) showing the cause of death as head injury completes the chain of circumstances indicating the fact that the appellant inflicted fatal blows to the deceased. The learned trial court, therefore, has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the alleged offences. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgement dated 13.09.2012 impugned herein. 13. Parcha Bayan of Ummed Ram disclosing the incident clearly shows that the appellant assaulted the deceased while he was going towards Tokarla near Kareli river after intercepting his way. A report whereof was lodged in the Government Hospital, Khiwara and his thumb impression was affixed in the report. The version of the incident given by Ummed Ram gets fortified by the statement of PW5 Narayan Lal who stated that on the fateful day, deceased Ummed Ram was walking 50 yards in front of him and accused appellant Ram Singh intercepted him near the river and assaulted him. He called Hema Ram and Bharat Kumar on telephone and told them about the incident. Both of them came on the spot. Thereafter, he went to Gendari. In his cross examination, he stated that the accused-appellant inflicted 4-5 blows on the head, hands and legs of deceased Ummed Ram. Bharat Kumar and Hema Ram reached the place of incident in 5-10 minutes. When they reached the place of the incident, he went to Gendari. 14. PW3 Hema Ram stated that on receiving the call from Narayan Lal (PW5), he went to the place of the incident with his brother where they saw that accused-appellant was assaulting Ummed Ram. Bharat Kumar and Hema Ram reached the place of incident in 5-10 minutes. When they reached the place of the incident, he went to Gendari. 14. PW3 Hema Ram stated that on receiving the call from Narayan Lal (PW5), he went to the place of the incident with his brother where they saw that accused-appellant was assaulting Ummed Ram. Accused-appellant ran away from the place of the incident, when he and his brother Bharat Kumar tried to pursue and nab him. They took Ummed Ram to the hospital and informed the police. The police came and recorded his as well as Ummed Ram's statement. Since, injuries were serious, Ummed Ram was referred to Hospital where he passed away while being under treatment. During the cross examination of this witness, nothing was elicited which can discredit the evidence given by this witness in his examination in chief. PW4 Bharat Kumar also deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW3 Hema Ram. 15. PW14 Dr. Narpat Singh being the member of the Medical Board which conducted autopsy upon the body of Ummed Ram stated that there were five injuries on the body of the deceased. He described the position and dimensions of the injuries. In the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was head injury. He further stated that blood clot in the cavity of the brain could have been removed, if the patient was treated in time by performing operation. It was also stated that in injury No.1 & 3, there was no fracture. The injuries No.2 & 4 were one and same. The possibility of sustaining the injuries No.2 & 4 by accident while falling from a height could not be ruled out. 16. PW16 Mohan Lal Khinniwal was the investigating Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recoveries, collected the samples. He further stated that he completed the investigation under the provisions of law. The postmortem report is Ex.P/15 wherein the cause of death was shown as head injury. 17. We find that statement of Ummed Ram (Ex.P/10) can be treated as dying declaration. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the same. He further stated that he completed the investigation under the provisions of law. The postmortem report is Ex.P/15 wherein the cause of death was shown as head injury. 17. We find that statement of Ummed Ram (Ex.P/10) can be treated as dying declaration. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the same. As discussed in the preceding paras, the testimony of PW3 Hema Ram, PW4 Bharat Kumar and PW5 Narayan Lal clearly shows that the appellant inflicted bamboo stick blows on the body of Ummed Ram. PW3 Hema Ram and PW4 Bharat Kumar took him to Khinwara Hospital. Since he was grievously injured, therefore, Ummed Ram was referred to Pali Hospital where he ultimately died. The clinching evidence of PW3 Hema Ram, PW4 Bharat Kumar and PW5 Narayan Lal who are eye witnesses of the incident leaves no room to disbelieve the prosecution story. 18. The ocular evidence and dying declaration are getting full corroboration from the statement of PW14 Dr. Narpat Singh and Postmortem report (Ex.P/15) wherein the cause of death is shown as head injury. Besides this, the fact of recovery of bamboo stick on the information supplied by the accused appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act completes the chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that the accused appellant inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased Ummed Ram. Even if for arguments sake, the argument advanced by learned Amicus curiae that PW3 Hema Ram, PW4 Bharat Kumar and PW5 Narayan Lal are interested witnesses and therefore, their testimony should be discarded is noted to be rejected as testimony of these witness is getting full corroboration from the Parcha Bayan of deceased Ummed Ram. In the opinion of this court, learned trial court, therefore, was perfectly justified in convicting the accused appellant for the alleged offences. 19. The contention raised by learned Amicus Curiae that only one single injury was there on the vital part of deceased and other injuries were on the hands and legs, therefore, conviction of the accused appellant should be converted from the offence under section 302 IPC to that of offence under section 304 Part-I IPC does not impress us as repeated blows with the bamboo stick were caused on the body of the deceased, which clearly depicts intention of the accused appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that in the present case, conviction of the accused appellant cannot be converted from offence under section 302 IPC to offence under section 304 Part-I of IPC. In view of the discussion here in above, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The judgement and order dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act Cases, Pali is upheld. The record be returned forthwith.