Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 243 (RAJ)

Lekh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.05.1994 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 86/92 by which, they were convicted and sentenced as below:- Appellants Conviction for Offences under Sections Sentences Lekhram 304 (I) I.P.C. 5 Years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- Taru Ram @ Tara Chand 324 I.P.C. 3½ Months' imprisonment which he has already undergone Vinod 323 I.P.C. 3½ Months' imprisonment which he has already undergone 2. Shri H.S. Kharlia, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri Digvijay Singh, representing the appellants urged that the trial court has clearly held in the impugned judgment that the complainant party was the aggressor. They went to the field of the accused with a clear design to dispossess them and to cultivate the same. The accused were working in the field at the time of the incident and they resisted this illegal attempt of the complainant party and had a right to raise arms in defence. Shri Kharlia further urged that the deceased Ram Pratap was, as a matter of fact hired by the other members of the complainant party, for show of force so as to oust the accused persons from the field in question and that mere his presence at the field, gives an indication of the criminal intent of the complainant party itself. He thus, urged that in this background, rather than simply toning down the charge attributed to the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304-I IPC, the accused ought to have been acquitted in totality. His alternative submission was that the accused-appellant Lekh Ram who has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to five years RI, deserves to be released on the sentence already undergone by him, which is nearly three years. On these grounds, Shri Kharlia implored the Court to accept the appeal and reduce the sentences awarded to the accused-appellant Lekh Ram. Regarding the other accused-appellants, Shri Kharlia candidly conceded that they have already served out the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and thus, this appeal to their extent may simply be disposed off as infructuous. On these grounds, Shri Kharlia implored the Court to accept the appeal and reduce the sentences awarded to the accused-appellant Lekh Ram. Regarding the other accused-appellants, Shri Kharlia candidly conceded that they have already served out the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and thus, this appeal to their extent may simply be disposed off as infructuous. In support of his contentions, Shri Kharlia, placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bagadi Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003 AIR SCW 6692. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Kharlia and urged that the complainant party was unarmed when they went to the field in question in a bonafide attempt to cultivate the same. The accused took to arms without any cause or provocation and killed one man and caused hurt to others in a totally high handed manner. He submitted that the trial court has already acted with leniency while toning down the charge attributed to the accused to Section 304-I IPC from that of Section 302 IPC and thus, no further leniency is called for on this aspect. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 5. The fact that the accused persons were in cultivatory possession over the field in question is an admitted position as has been held by the trial court in the impugned judgment itself, which has attained finality. The trial court further held that it was the complainant party who went to the field with arms and intending to take possession thereof and a fight ensued in this process. The accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC with this finding and they were held responsible for their individual acts. As per the evidence available on record, it is apparent that Ram Pratap had no claim or connection whatsoever with the field in question regarding which, some kind of dispute was going on between the accused appellants and the complainant Bhari Ram, who lodged the First Information Report (Ex. As per the evidence available on record, it is apparent that Ram Pratap had no claim or connection whatsoever with the field in question regarding which, some kind of dispute was going on between the accused appellants and the complainant Bhari Ram, who lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P/9) at the Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar on 09.09.1991 alleging that the field in question was owned by Gora W/o Meharchand and that the accused-persons were intending to take possession of the field in question. The first informant, along with his brother Sahab Ram, Kalu Ram and Ram Pratap went to the field for the purpose of cultivating the same. The accused were sitting there from before they asked the complainant party to go away saying that the land belonged to them. Kalu Ram persuaded that land was of his mother-in-law and thereafter a fight ensued in which, the accused Lekh Ram allegedly gave a kassi blow on the head of deceased Ram Pratap which proved fatal. As per the injury report (Ex. P/4) and the postmortem report (Ex. P/6), Ram Pratap was having a solitary incised wound ad-measuring 3.5 cm X .3 cm X 1.5 cm on right parietal region, which proved fatal. 6. Considering the fact that Ram Pratap had no connection with the field in question, apparently, his presence at the field in question along with the other members of the complainant party does give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he might have been hired as a henchman to subdue the members of the accused-party. The dimensions of the solitary head injury caused to Ram Pratap, which is attributed to the accused appellant Lekh Ram by all the prosecution witnesses are not too large. The accused-appellant Lekh Ram allegedly caused this injury to Ram Pratap by a kassi, which is an agricultural implement. Therefore, it is clear that the accused were acting in exercise of the right of private defence of their land but while inflicting the kassi blow on the head of Ram Pratap, the accused Lekh Ram used excessive force than was necessary and thus, he can be held liable for causing a grievous hurt by a sharp weapon to the deceased Ram Pratap. Thus, conviction of the accused-appellant Lekh Ram for the charge under Section 304-I IPC deserves to be altered to one under Section 326 IPC. Thus, conviction of the accused-appellant Lekh Ram for the charge under Section 304-I IPC deserves to be altered to one under Section 326 IPC. But conviction of the accused appellants Taru Ram @ Tara Chand and Vinod does not warrant any interference. The incident took place way back in the Year 1991. The accused-appellant Lekh Ram has remained in custody for a period in excess of 2 years and 11 months. The accused Taru Ram @ Tara Chand and Vinod have already suffered the sentences awarded to them by the trial court. 7. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is accepted in part. While the conviction of the appellant Lekh Ram for the charge under Section 304-I IPC is altered to one under Section 326 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Co-accused Taru Ram @ Tara Chand and Vinod have already served out the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and thus, their appeal is disposed off while affirming the impugned judgment. However, the sentence of fine to the tune of Rs. 200/- awarded to the accused appellant Lekh Ram by the trial court is maintained. The accused Lekh Ram is given two months' time to deposit the fine in the trial court, failing which, he shall serve out the default sentence. 8. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.