Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1435 (RAJ)

Narayan Ram v. State

2021-08-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.82/2020, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur, for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 354, 302, 323, 341 and 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel Shri Ravindra Acharya representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that as a matter of fact, the deceased was the aggressor in the case. A civil litigation was instituted by the deceased Hanuman Ram against the accused party which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Nawa in the year 2015. On 24.06.2020, the appellants were peacefully working on the disputed chunk of land. The deceased Hanuman Ram came around armed with an axe and threatened the accused appellant and his son Mukesh, the co-accused to stop the work. However, when the accused did not refrain to this unjust demand, Hanuman Ram assaulted them by an axe. Grievous injuries were caused to the appellant herein virtually severing his fingers. Head injuries were inflicted to the appellant and the co-accused Mukesh. In these circumstances, the appellant and the co-accused persons were compelled to raise arms in defence. Injuries were inflicted to Hanuman Ram on the non-vital parts of the body which unfortunately proved fatal. Shri Acharya thus urged that the appellant, who is in judicial custody since June, 2020, has a strong case of private defence of person as well as property. Trial of the case is likely to consume. On these grounds, Shri Acharya sought acceptance of the appeal and prayed that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. Trial of the case is likely to consume. On these grounds, Shri Acharya sought acceptance of the appeal and prayed that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, they are not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant Narayan Ram himself received grievous injuries on his left hand and as per the medical report, three fingers of his left hand were severely damaged by a sharp weapon blow. The appellant and Co-accused Mukesh also received a head injury each in the very same incident. Shri Bhawani Singh Mertiya, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently urged that the appeal filed by the deceased Hanuman Ram against the dismissal of his suit is still pending. The appellant and coaccused persons were trying to take illegal possession of a government land and when the deceased requested them not to do so, he was brutally murdered. He thus sought dismissal of the appeal 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. As per the postmortem report of the deceased Hanuman Ram, all injuries, which were found on his person, were on the legs and hands. The Medical Board specifically mentioned in the postmortem report that there was no evidence of head, thorax or abdominal injury or haematoma. The cause of death was opined to be shock due to multiple injuries. A cross-case was registered from the side of the accused and the injuries of the accused appellant and the co-accused were examined as per which, the accused appellant received multiple injuries on his left hand leading to fracture of metacarpal bones and cutting of tendons. Lacerated wounds were also noticed on the head of Narayan Ram, the appellant herein, and his son Mukesh. The I.O., while concluding investigation, has categorically recorded in the chargesheet that the accused were digging a foundation for erecting a boundary wall on the disputed plot when the deceased came there armed with an axe. He tried to stop the accused persons who did not relent on which, Hanuman Ram assaulted Narayan Ram as well as Mukesh by the axe. He tried to stop the accused persons who did not relent on which, Hanuman Ram assaulted Narayan Ram as well as Mukesh by the axe. Thereafter, the accused appellant and the co-accused persons assaulted Hanuman Ram. The injured witnesses were also caused simple injuries. 7. In view of these facts, it is apparent that the appellant and the co-accused persons were in possession of disputed piece of land before. The civil suit filed by Hanuman Ram in relation to the same land had been dismissed. An appeal was filed but no stay order was granted in favour of Hanuman Ram. It is Hanuman Ram who went to the place of incident armed with an axe and provoked the accused persons and not only this, he also inflicted numerous injuries to the accused Narayan Ram and the co-accused Mukesh. The accused retaliated and inflicted injuries to the deceased, all of which were on the hands and legs i.e. the non-vital parts of the body. 8. In view of these facts but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Narayan Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.82/2020, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.