Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2229 (RAJ)

Girdhari Ram v. State

2022-08-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred praying for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge levelled against him.” 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1992 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 1994. 3. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 14.01.1994, passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 2/93 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 II I.P.C. and was sentenced to 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default of payment of which he was to undergo further 3 months of S.I. 4. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the complainant Basti Ram S/o Shri Mangi Lal R/o Village Tarnau lodged an F.I.R. on 01.10.1992 at about 12:40 a.m. at Police Station, Jayal alleging therein that his brother, Hari Ram while grazing his cattle at the boundary of the village, near Jindia Talav was beaten by the appellant with a lathi owing to a demand of a borrowed sum of money. And that, the complainant was apprised of the same on 30.9.1992 at about 05:00 p.m. Lala Ram S/o Barkat Ram came to his house in his jeep, bringing along with him his brother who was injured and bleeding. And that, Hari Ram then narrated the same to him, upon which he took Hari Ram to the Govt. Hospital, Jayal for treatment. And that, subsequently, during the course of investigation, the injured Hari Ram succumbed to his injuries and passed away at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. And that the case so registered was then converted from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 302 I.P.C. And that, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur and the case was committed to the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur. And that, charges were framed and upon trial, the learned Trial Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant. 5. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur. And that, charges were framed and upon trial, the learned Trial Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court erred in relying on the statements of P.W. 3 Hanuman Ram and P.W. 6 Kishtura, and that the testimony of P.W. 8 Bhura Ram suffers on the count of it being contradictory to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and him being a child witness, and therefore was unreliable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the testimony of P.W. 20 Raju Ram, who had not seen the incident in question, cannot be relied upon and is in fact a prepared witness. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is an unexplained delay in the filing of F.I.R. and that the same further weakens the case of the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that a single injury was sustained by the victim, and that the absence of repeated and/or multiple injuries reveal the absence of intention on the part of the accused. And that, at best an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out against him. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the victim passed away as a result of the negligence of the doctors at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and the relatives of the deceased, all of whom if had acted swiftly could have saved the life of the deceased victim. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence so awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 25.01.1994 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 44/1994. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, along with the record of the case. 13. Learned counsel for the private respondent placed reliance on the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. 13. Learned counsel for the private respondent placed reliance on the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Hans Raj (2019) 11 SCC 573 wherein looking into the nature of injury the charge under Section 302 against the accused therein was restored by the Hon’ble Apex Court and conviction was restored. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the allegations against the doctors and the relatives of the deceased victim, attributing negligence on their part as contributory to his passing, are mere claims, unsubstantiated by any evidence having been placed on the record. 15. This Court observes that the contention made on behalf of the appellant that there is an absence of intention of the part of the appellant also cannot be accepted merely on the basis that repeated or multiple injuries were not inflicted upon the victim. 16. This Court further observes that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Hans Raj (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, with respect to the difference in the nature of injuries sustained by the victim in the said case. Furthermore, the learned Court below has rightly recorded the categorical finding that the incident in question took place as a result of a heated argument between the accused-appellant and the deceased victim, owing to some financial transaction between them, and therefore, it could not be said that there was premeditation on the part of the accused-appellant. 17. This Court, however, observes that the incident in question occurred in the year 1992, and of the total sentence awarded to he appellant, he has undergone a period of 1 year 2 months 22 days, as revealed from the custody report date 07.07.2022, placed on the record. 18. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 19. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 304 II I.P.C., as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 25.01.1994 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 44/1994, whereby the sentenced awarded to him was suspended. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications are disposed of.