Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2761 (RAJ)

Nand Lal, S/o. Buta Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-16

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been listed for hearing in the category of Special Fixed Matters - (30 Years Old Cases). 2. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 04.11.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.153/1990: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.500/- 1 Month’s Additional R.I. 3. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentence awarded, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 4. A perusal of the original record would indicate the appellant was arrested in this case on 22.10.1989. He remained incarcerated in prison throughout the trial and finally, pursuant to the order of suspension of sentences passed by this Court, the accused was released from custody on 23.12.1991. 5. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal can be encompassed in a very short framework. The appellant is the brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the deceased Shri Satnam Singh. On 19.10.1989, the accused appellant was present at the house of his father-in-law as he had been invited to the upcoming wedding of his brother-in-law Satnam Singh. All the family members including appellant, his wife Maya Bai and Satnam Singh had collected round gourd (Tinda) from the fields. In the evening at about 8 O’ Clock, Satnam Singh declared that he would spend time studying and would not go to sell the harvest. Nandlal told him that he would have to go for selling the farm produce. On this issue, Satnam Singh and Nand Lal quarreled with each other. All of a sudden, Nand Lal picked up a two pronged rake lying at the spot and hit it on the head of Satnam Singh who became restless and ran away towards the Dhani of Qutub Shah. Nand Lal also ran away from the spot after threatening his wife Maya Bai that she should not intervene. Maya Bai proceeded to the Dhani of Qutub Shah where she saw Satnam Singh lying unconscious. Qutub Shah asked her to take Satnam Singh away. On this, Satnam Singh was lifted on shoulders and taken back to his father’s Dhani. From there, Satnam Singh was taken to Bikaner Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. Maya Bai proceeded to the Dhani of Qutub Shah where she saw Satnam Singh lying unconscious. Qutub Shah asked her to take Satnam Singh away. On this, Satnam Singh was lifted on shoulders and taken back to his father’s Dhani. From there, Satnam Singh was taken to Bikaner Hospital where the doctors declared him dead. The oral report of the incident was submitted by Laxman Singh, brother of Satnam Singh at the Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner whereupon FIR No.75/1989 (Ex.P/1) came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was undertaken. The accused appellant was arrested. The dead body of Satnam Singh was subjected to postmortem by Dr. P.K. Saraswat posted as Medical Jurist at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. The Medical Jurist took note of following 3 injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) Diffused Swelling with Abrasion admeasuring 1 cm. X 1 cm. on left forearm dorsally in upper 1/3rd, placed obliquely; (2) Diffused Swelling over left hand dorsally more below radial side i.e. below thumb and index finger with an abrasion admeasuring 1.5 cm. X 0.5 cm. over the knuckle surface of index finger dorsally; and (3) Lacerated wound admeasuring 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. skin deep injury on the mid parietal region with swelling. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the duration thereof was opined to be between 6-12 hours. When the skull was opened, the bones were found intact. The brain membrane was congested with redness. A haematoma admeasuring 0.3 cm. X 0.5 cm. was noted in the left cerebral hemisphere and was in the stage of forming a blood clot. The brain was having swelling and congestion and clots had collected inside the brain. The cause of death was opined to be antemortem head injury leading to coma. 6. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court of the Magistrate concerned. As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where, it was transferred to the court of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Bikaner for trial. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same, claimed to be innocent and took a plea that on the day of the incident, he was suffering from fever and was sleeping in the house of Prem Singh. Satnam Singh came there, called him out and told that he (the accused) should go to Bikaner for selling the farm produce. The accused resisted saying that he was down with the fever on which, Satnam Singh used profane language and started beating him with the rake. On this, he snatched the rake from Satnam Singh and gave one blow thereof to Satnam Singh. Then he fled away from the spot. No evidence was led in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by impugned Judgment dated 04.11.1991 which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae Shri Amitabh Acharya and learned counsel Shri Kaushal Gautam representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that even if the allegations set out in the prosecution case are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the offence attributed to the accused cannot travel beyond Section 323 IPC or at best, Section 304 Part II IPC. They submitted that admittedly the incident took place after a sudden quarrel in the heat of the moment without any provocation. The accused and the deceased were closely related to each other. They quarreled over a trivial issue of selling the farm produce. In this process, in the heat of the commotion, the accused picked up the rake, which is an agricultural equipment, lying at the spot and gave a single blow thereof on the head of the deceased. The blow was not given with any significant force because the external injury noticed by the doctor on the skull of the deceased was having very small dimensions of 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. and was skin deep. The blow was not given with any significant force because the external injury noticed by the doctor on the skull of the deceased was having very small dimensions of 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. and was skin deep. As per learned defence counsel, it seems that the deceased fell down at some other place after the incident and the haematoma was formed as a result of the fall. Thus, it was the contention of the learned defence counsel that the death of Shri Satnam Singh was not the direct outcome of the injury attributed to the accused appellant. On these grounds, they urged that the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside and the offence attributed to the accused should be toned down to one under Section 323 IPC or at best 304 Part II IPC with suitable reduction in sentence. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the defence counsel and submitted that the accused inflicted repeated blows of the multi-pronged rake on the vital body part of the deceased i.e. head. The injury so inflicted led to internal haemorrhage associated with formation of blood clot in the victim’s brain who became comatose and expired as a result of the injury inflicted to him by the accused. He further submitted that the eye-witnesses Maya Bai (PW-3) and Gurcharan Singh (PW-4) stated that the accused inflicted the injury to the deceased. The accused himself, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted that he gave the rake blow to the deceased and thus, the prosecution has proved its case as against the accused appellant beyond all manner of doubt. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 10. It may be noted that the factum of incident was admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the prosecution, eye-witnesses PW-3 Maya Bai wife of the accused appellant and PW-4 Gurcharan, younger brother of Satnam Singh were examined to prove its case. Smt. Maya wife of the accused appellant stated that her husband had been invited to her maternal home to participate in the marriage of Satnam Singh which was scheduled to be solemnized a few days later. Smt. Maya wife of the accused appellant stated that her husband had been invited to her maternal home to participate in the marriage of Satnam Singh which was scheduled to be solemnized a few days later. The family members including the appellant and Satnam Singh had collected the gourd crop (Tinda) from the fields. Thereafter, Satnam Singh stated that he would proceed to study whereas the accused appellant insisted that he should go to sell the farm produce. On this issue, a quarrel broke out between the two and during the course of this quarrel, the accused picked up a two pronged rake lying on the ground and gave one blow thereof on the head of Satnam Singh. Though Maya Bai (PW-3) alleged that the accused gave repeated blows to Satnam Singh but this aspersion is not established from the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. P.K. Saraswat (PW-12) who noted two superficial injuries on the left arm and right hand’s fingers in addition to the lacerated wound on the head of the deceased. Thus, the allegation made by Smt. Maya Bai that the accused inflicted repeated blows to the deceased is not established. There is a contradiction between the statement of Maya Bai (PW-3) and Gurcharan Singh (PW-4) inasmuch as, Gurcharan Singh stated that Nand Lal and Satnam Singh indulged in a brawl while they were plucking the Tinda crop. 11. After receiving injuries caused by the accused appellant, Satnam Singh proceeded to the Dhani of Qutub Shah from where, he was brought back. However, Qutub Shah was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, all that can be concluded from the testimony of Maya Bai (PW-3) and Gurcharan Singh (PW-4) is that the accused and Satnam Singh indulged in an unprovoked brawl over the issue of selling the farm produce and in this suddenly flared up quarrel, the accused picked up a two pronged rake lying at the spot and gave a single blow thereof on the head of Shri Satnam Singh which resulted into a small skin deep wound admeasuring 2 cm. X 0.5 cm. In view of the minuscule dimensions of the injury, it can safely be concluded that the blow was not inflicted with any significant force. As per the statements of Maya Bai (PW-3) and Gurcharan (PW-4), the incident took place in the morning of 19.10.1989 at about 8 O’ Clock. X 0.5 cm. In view of the minuscule dimensions of the injury, it can safely be concluded that the blow was not inflicted with any significant force. As per the statements of Maya Bai (PW-3) and Gurcharan (PW-4), the incident took place in the morning of 19.10.1989 at about 8 O’ Clock. On the contrary, the Medical Jurist Dr. P.K. Saraswat (PW-12) who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of Satnam Singh on 20.10.1989 at about 01.00 pm., made an observation that the injuries caused to Shri Satnam were of 6-12 hours of duration. However, medical opinion regarding time of injuries is generally by way of an estimation. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the FIR (Ex.P/1) of the incident, which is said to have taken place on 19.10.1989 at about 08.00 AM., came to be lodged on 20.10.1989 at about 10.00 AM. i.e. after more than 24 hours of the incident. 12. In view of the admitted facts as discussed above, apparently, the accused had neither intention nor knowledge to inflict such injury to the deceased which could cause his death. There was no prior animosity between the accused appellant and the deceased Satnam Singh. Rather, the accused had been invited to his wife’s maternal home for participating in the marriage of Satnam Singh. During the spare time, the accused participated in the family farming activities where a sudden quarrel flared up between the accused and the deceased Satnam Singh on the issue of selling the round gourd (Tinda) crop. While the accused was insisting that Satnam Singh should go and sell the crop, the deceased refused saying that he had to study. It is in the course of this sudden quarrel that the accused picked up the rake lying at the spot and gave a single blow thereof on the head of the deceased. It may be reiterated that head injury, which was totally superficial in nature, was not inflicted with any significant force. Thus, the accused cannot be attributed either intention or knowledge that by inflicting such injury, he could cause the death of his own brother-in-law Shri Satnam Singh. After the incident, Satnam Singh went away to the Dhani of Qutub Shah where he was found lying in an unconscious condition. Qutub Shah was not examined in evidence. Thus, the accused cannot be attributed either intention or knowledge that by inflicting such injury, he could cause the death of his own brother-in-law Shri Satnam Singh. After the incident, Satnam Singh went away to the Dhani of Qutub Shah where he was found lying in an unconscious condition. Qutub Shah was not examined in evidence. Thus, the possibility of Shri Satnam Singh having developed a haematome on account of falling on the ground cannot be ruled out. It is quite probable that the indirect impact of the rake blow on the head of deceased led to internal bleeding haemorrhage which was in turn formed a blood clot and ultimately, the deceased fell into a coma and expired. 13. In view of the facts noted above, we are of the firm opinion that looking to the manner in which, the incident took place and the superficial nature of injury caused by the accused to the deceased after a sudden quarrel by a rake lying at the spot and that too without any significant force, the offence for which the accused can be held liable, would be that under Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 302 IPC. 14. As a result, the impugned Judgment dated 04.11.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.153/1990 is modified. Conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is toned down to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. As noted above, the accused appellant has remained in custody for 2 years and 2 months. The incident took place 33 years ago and thus, it would be a travesty of justice if the appellant is sent back to custody at this highly belated stage. Thus, we reduce the sentence to be awarded to the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II to the period already undergone by him. The accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 15. Thus, we reduce the sentence to be awarded to the accused appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II to the period already undergone by him. The accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. 15. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.. 16. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. 17. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.