Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 85 (RAJ)

Ranveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 2. The appellant Ranveer Singh has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 77/1992 (19/91): Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 307 IPC 03 Years' R.I. Rs.5,000/- 06 Months' S.I. Section 326 IPC 03 Years' R.I. Rs.2,000/- 06 Months' S.I. Section 447 IPC 01 Month's R.I. Rs.100/- 07 Days' S.I. Section 323 IPC - Rs.200/- 15 Days' S.I. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently 3. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel Shri Dadhich representing the appellant submits that the appellant and the co-accused Man Singh were charged for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 147, 148, 447 and 323/149 IPC whereas, the remaining six accused were charged for the offences under Sections 307/149, 147, 148, 447, 326/149 and 323/149 IPC. He has urged that the injured Veer Singh (PW-3) categorically alleged that initially Man Singh gave him a farsi blow whereas, Rajpal and Ranveer Singh inflicted him blows by a raapda. Then, Ranveer Singh's wife gave him a jaili blow on his hand. He submits that the appellant made an admission in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had inflicted the injuries to the injured Veer Singh in exercise of his right of private defence, but the learned trial court, partly accepted the said statement of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as above. He urges that the learned trial court was not justified in extracting the inculpatory part of the statement of the accused Veer Singh while excluding the exculpatory part wherein, the accused stated that he caused injuries to Veer Singh in exercise of right of private defence. He further submits that from the evidence of the injured Veer Singh, it is clear that the head injury caused to him in the incident was attributed specifically to the accused Phoola who has been acquitted. Thus, as per Shri Dadhich, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. He further submits that from the evidence of the injured Veer Singh, it is clear that the head injury caused to him in the incident was attributed specifically to the accused Phoola who has been acquitted. Thus, as per Shri Dadhich, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination. He urges that for the charges under Sections 326, 447 and 323, the appellant has already remained in custody for a period of four months and 10 days. The incident took place way back in the year 1990 and thus, as per Shri Dadhich, ends of justice would be subserved by reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the trial court acquitted the co-accused persons even though, the evidence of the star prosecution witness i.e. injured Veer Singh (PW-3) was clearly sufficient to hold them guilty of the charges. He conceded that the State Government has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused persons by the impugned judgment. 6. Apparently, the trial court partly relied upon the prosecution evidence and partly upon the admission made by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he caused all the injuries to the injured while holding him guilty of the charges and acquitting the remaining accused. The conclusion so drawn by the trial court in the impugned Judgment, is absolutely unjust and perverse on the face of the record but, this Court's hands are tied because no appeal against acquittal of the co-accused persons has been preferred by the State Government. As per the statement of the injured Veer Singh (PW-3), the accused appellant inflicted the blow by raapda/farsi on his legs. The said injury resulted into cut wounds as per the medical opinion of PW-1 Dr. K.L. Maroo, Radiologist and PW-2 Dr. Mohanlal Meena, the medical jurist. In addition to the grievous injuries attributed to the appellant, the injured Veer Singh attributed specific blows by sharp and blunt weapons to the accused Rajpal, Bala, Phoola, etc. However, as noted above, these co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court. K.L. Maroo, Radiologist and PW-2 Dr. Mohanlal Meena, the medical jurist. In addition to the grievous injuries attributed to the appellant, the injured Veer Singh attributed specific blows by sharp and blunt weapons to the accused Rajpal, Bala, Phoola, etc. However, as noted above, these co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial court. The injury No. 7 located on the skull region of the injured was caused by a sharp weapon; simple in nature and was attributed to the co-accused Phoola. As many as three accused persons namely Man Singh, Rajpal and the appellant Ranveer Singh are alleged to have inflicted sharp weapon blows on the legs of the injured Veer Singh. A total of five injuries by sharp weapon were noticed on the legs of the injured Veer Singh by Dr. Mohanlal Meena (PW-2) of which four were opined to be grievous by the Radiologist Dr. K.L. Maroo (PW-1). Thus, the participation of the accused appellant in the incident and the fact regarding he having inflicted a grievous blow by a sharp weapon on the legs of the injured is well established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the admission of the appellant himself. However, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained for the simple reason that there is no allegation of the prosecution that he inflicted repeated injuries to the injured or that the head injury caused to the injured was inflicted by him. Thus, conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. However, his conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 326, 447, 323 IPC does not call for any interference because the said finding is based on apropos appreciation of evidence available on the record. 7. Now coming to the aspect of sentencing. The incident took place way back in the year 1990. Seven co-accused persons against whom identical allegations were levelled by the prosecution, were acquitted by the trial court vide the impugned judgment and no appeal has been preferred by the State Government for assailing their acquittal. 8. 7. Now coming to the aspect of sentencing. The incident took place way back in the year 1990. Seven co-accused persons against whom identical allegations were levelled by the prosecution, were acquitted by the trial court vide the impugned judgment and no appeal has been preferred by the State Government for assailing their acquittal. 8. In this background, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be subserved by reducing the substantive sentences awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him which is 4 months 10 days. However, at the same time, the fine imposed upon the appellant deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 01.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 77/1992 is set aside to the extent of conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 326, 447 and 323 of the IPC is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and a fine to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in default of payment whereof, the appellant shall further undergo one year's imprisonment. The fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within two months time. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount of fine by 16th March, 2020, he shall be taken in custody to serve out the default sentence. The fine amount, upon being realised, shall be paid to the victim Veer Singh (if he is alive and if not, to his legal heirs) by way of compensation. The impugned judgment is modified to the above extent. 10. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. 11. Record be returned to the trial court.