Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1983 (RAJ)

Poona Ram v. State

2022-07-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.05.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur ('trial court') in Sessions Case No. 47/86, whereby the present accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 324 & 323 IPC; for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further five months rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, on 18.07.1985, one Bhagirath Ram (complainant) had submitted a written report before the Police Station, Lohawat alleging therein that his field was situated at Sharhad Jatawas-Lohawat. It was alleged that on that day at about 10:00 p.m., one Khanu Ram came to his field alongwith Danu Ram, Ganga Ram and Sukh Ram and Poona Ram, and while the complainant alongwith his brothers, namely, Harchand Ram and Bablu Ram was working in his field, Khanu Ram stopped them from doing so, whereupon the complainant party left the place. 2.1. As per the report, after about an hour, the accused persons again came to the field of the complainant and started cultivating the same, and upon being stopped by the complainant party, Danu Ram, who was driving the tractor drove the tractor towards Harchand Ram; after this, Danu Ram alongwith Ganga Ram and Faglu Ram attacked Harchand Ram, while Poona Ram (the present accused-appellant) inflicted a Farsi blow upon the head of Harchand Ram, and other accused persons also assaulted him. 2.2. When the complainant tried to intervene, Poona Ram inflicted injuries on the complainant's head and on his right hand as well, apart therefrom, other accused persons also assaulted the complainant. 2.2. When the complainant tried to intervene, Poona Ram inflicted injuries on the complainant's head and on his right hand as well, apart therefrom, other accused persons also assaulted the complainant. The complaint further reveals that Khanu Ram inflicted lathi injury on the complainant's hand, and when his brother Bagdu Ram tried to intervene, Danu Ram and Ganga Ram caught hold of him and assaulted him. On hearing the cries, Ladu Ram and Hardass Ram came there, whereupon all the accused person fled away therefrom. 2.3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 & 323 IPC; after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 & 307 IPC before the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, from where, upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned trial court for the necessary adjudication. 2.4. The charges were framed by the learned trial court against the accused persons, namely, Poona Ram (present accused-appellant), Khanu Ram, Faglu Ram, Dhanu Ram, Ganga Ram and Sukhram under Sections 147, 447, 307 IPC (in alternative, under Sections 307/149, 324 in alternative 324/149, 323 in alternative 323/149 IPC; upon the charges being denied by the accused persons, they were made to stand the trial. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced, amongst others, the present accused-appellant Poona Ram, vide the impugned judgment dated 03.05.1992, as above. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the learned trial court, after conclusion of the trial, declined to accept the prosecution case regarding the accused persons being the members of an unlawful assembly and criminal trespass by them, and rightly so; however, despite all the charges having been substantially disproved before the learned trial court by the accused persons on the strength of testimony of the defence witnesses, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced, amongst others, the present accused appellant, vide the impugned judgment, which runs contrary to law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that it was sufficiently proved by the testimony of DW-1 Sohan Singh and DW-2 Nimbaram that on the date of the alleged incident, the present accused-appellant Poona Ram was present on his official (government) duty. 3.1.1. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that it was sufficiently proved by the testimony of DW-1 Sohan Singh and DW-2 Nimbaram that on the date of the alleged incident, the present accused-appellant Poona Ram was present on his official (government) duty. 3.1.1. Learned counsel also submits that the testimony of DW-1 Sohan Singh made it amply clear that from 17.07.1985 & 18.07.1985, the present accused-appellant was working with him; the testimony of DW-2 Nimbaram was to the effect that in connection with the work of loading and unloading, which was undertaken from 16.07.1985 to 18.07.1985, the present accused-appellant was working with him at Phalodi. Thus, as per learned counsel, by no stretch of imagination, the presence of the accused-appellant at the place of the alleged occurrence on 18.07.1985, can be presumed. 3.2. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also not duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it; hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside, more particularly, in view of the fact that the present accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant. 4.1. They submit that in regard to absence of the accused-appellant on the place of the occurrence, at the relevant time, was not substantiated by placing cogent evidence, viz. attendance register etc. on record. They further submit that the learned trial court has rightly held that the evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly shows that the presence of the accused-appellant at the place of the occurrence on the relevant day and his role in the said incident. 4.2. They thus submit that the learned trial court has dealt with each and every aspect relevant for the adjudication and has also duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it; hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. 4.2. They thus submit that the learned trial court has dealt with each and every aspect relevant for the adjudication and has also duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it; hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the very root of the prosecution case is that the alleged incident took place in the field of the complainant party, whereas it is an established fact that the complainant party, at the relevant time, was not the lawful owner of the field in question. 5.1. Furthermore, the presence of the present accused-appellant has not been substantially proved by the prosecution at the place of the alleged incident, at the relevant time, which clearly casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution case regarding the role of the accused-appellant in causing any injury on any of the members of the complainant party. 5.2. The prosecution has also failed to place on record any clear evidence, which shows that the testimony of DW-1 Sohan Singh and DW-2 Nimbaram was not correct, and thus, unworthy of being believed, more particularly, when it was also not proved as to why they would make any false deposition, only with a view to protect the accused-appellant from the clutches of the criminal prosecution and consequential conviction. 5.3. Thus, in view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is allowed, and accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 23.05.1992, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the present case. He is on bail in pursuance of the order dated 19.06.1992 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 252/1992. The appellant need not surrender; his bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.