Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2818 (RAJ)

Saka Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2022-11-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 2.11.2000 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused appellants may kindly be acquitted of the charges levelled against them." 2. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of the record would reveal, are that on 05.11.1997, the statement of the victim Narayan Singh was recorded, wherein it was stated that on the said day at about 05:30 p.m., he was on his tractor along with Prem Singh and Pukhraj, and that Rata Ram and the present accused-appellants, Saka Ram and Varda Ram on their tractor approached and apprehended the victim, dragging him off his tractor onto the fields of one Pabu Singh. That Rata Ram and the accused-appellant Varda Ram subdued the victim, while the accused-appellant Saka Ram inflicted a serious injury on the victim’s head with a ’kulhaadi’ (Spade/Axe). It was also stated that Sakaram threatened the victim with his life. And that, when Prem Singh and other persons rushed to the spot, the accused persons fled the scene, after which he lost consciousness and fell to the ground. Thereafter, he was then taken by them on the tractor to village and then to the hospital in a jeep; which was later conveyed to him by Shaitan Singh, Jabarsingh and Lakhsingh. On the basis of such report, the police lodged an F.I.R. bearing No. 203/1997 on 05.11.1997 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 IPC against the aforementioned three accused persons. 2.1 After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against them for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307/34 IPC before the learned Court below; upon trial, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2000, acquitted Rata Ram but convicted the present accused-appellants; Sakaram for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and Varda Ram for the offences under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC, and accordingly, awarded each of them a sentence of 6 months S.I. and 5 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default of which they were to undergo further 6 months R.I. respectively. 3. 4,000/- in default of which they were to undergo further 6 months R.I. respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the said judgment is bad in the eye of the law, as the alleged dispute between the accused-appellants and the victim was owing to payment of rent of a tractor, and that the rent was payable by the accused-appellant Varda Ram, who was the debtor, to the complainant, and that the version of the prosecution is called into question as it more likely that it was the complainant who instigated the accused-appellant which lead to the occurrence of the incident in question. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the accused-Rata Ram was not arrayed as an accused in the chargesheet filed with regard to the incident in question but the learned Court below took cognizance against him subsequently. That upon trial, the learned Court below acquitted accused-Rataram but erroneously proceeded to convict the present accused-appellants, which reflects over-implication and overreach at the instance of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was ample time for the eye-witnesses to intervene and interfere in the incident in question, if the version of the prosecution is to be believed that the victim was dragged off his tractor and taken to a third person, Pabusingh’s fields, some forty feet away. That there was sufficient time to repeat the blow inflicted to the head of the victim, which was not done, thereby reflecting a lack of intention to cause death of the victim by the accused-appellants, and that therefore the charge against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable in the eye of the law. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants and submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below has been rightly passed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, including the submissions on behalf of the accusedappellants hereinabove, coupled with the evidences placed on the record before the Court; specifically the testimonies of all the witnesses; the victim, the eye-witnesses, the medical officers, amongst others; therefore, the judgment impugned ought to be upheld. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the learned Court below framed the three issues; namely, (i) whether the injury inflicted upon the victim-Narayansingh was made with a sharp-edged weapon with the intention to cause death; (ii) whether co-accused Rataram and Varda Ram had similar intention, as that of the main accused Saka Ram, to cause death to the victim and; (iii)whether victim-Narayansingh was restrained and subdued against his will at the time of the incident in question. 9. This Court further observes that in answering the first and second issues in the positive, the learned Court below carefully perused the testimonial and medical evidence placed before it, which revealed that there was no delay whatsoever in filing of the F.I.R., that the story of the prosecution was supported and corroborated by all the witnesses, including the medical officers, Dr. Prahladsingh and Dr.L.B. Aan, the police officers, the eye witnesses, Prem Singh and Vakaram, ancillary witnesses, Shaitan Singh and Jabar Singh, among others. Furthermore, the injury was inflicted with a Kulhaadi on a vital part of the body of the victim, his head, and evidence of both the medical witnesses reveal that a lack of treatment in due time could have lead to the death of the victim, the cause being the injury of about 9 x 2 x 2 c.m. upon his head which was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The said witnesses also ruled out the cause of such injury being a fist fight or a free fall on the mud guard of the tractor. 10. This Court also observes that the learned Court below found that the eye-witnesses and the victim deposed that the injury was caused by accused Saka Ram with the Kulhaadi, and no testimony against this version was proffered by any witness. The weapon in question, at Exp. 12, naksha report, at Exp. 13, the F.S.L. report, at Exp. 20, reveal blood stains on the weapon and spot in question, which are human. The weapon in question, at Exp. 12, naksha report, at Exp. 13, the F.S.L. report, at Exp. 20, reveal blood stains on the weapon and spot in question, which are human. Furthermore, the same were sealed and maintained in accordance with law, with the chain link and sanctity of evidence being maintained from being sealed after seizure at the first instance to be produced before the learned Court below; the same has been corroborated by witnesses; the maalkhana in-charge Kundan Singh, the Sipahi Bhim Singh who transported the same from the maalkhana to the laboratory, for which the receipt was issued, Girvir Singh, the officer Sipahi in the Court who received it sealed. 11. This Court further observes that in answering the third issue in the positive, the learned Court below found that the injury in question as already discussed is serious and grievous in nature which could have caused the death of the victim, furthermore, relying on case law as laid down by this Hon’ble Court, the learned Court below found the kulhaadi in question to be a sharp-edged weapon used to inflict injury upon the vital part of the victim’s person. That the accused-appellant Varda Ram restrained the victim, while the accused-appellant Saka Ram inflicted the injury upon him, is corroborated by the testimony of the victim and others who rushed to the spot, upon which the accused fled the scene of the incident in question. 11.1 Furthermore, the testimony of the accused-appellant itself reveals that there was animosity between the victim and the accused-appellants owing to a rental dispute regarding a tractor. That there was a heated exchange of words regarding the same as well; based on these both reasons, the learned Court below found prior animosity towards the victim, and intention to cause his death. And that accused-appellant Varda Ram is the father of the accused-appellant Saka Ram. 12. That there was a heated exchange of words regarding the same as well; based on these both reasons, the learned Court below found prior animosity towards the victim, and intention to cause his death. And that accused-appellant Varda Ram is the father of the accused-appellant Saka Ram. 12. This Court further observes that the learned Court below rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the charges levelled against them, looking into the serious nature of the injury, the use of the sharp-edged weapon i.e. kulhaadi, the previous animosity between the parties and the intention to cause the death of the victim, all of which are reflected and corroborated by testimonial and medical evidence, and that there is nothing on the record which accord merit to submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants, and therefore, the same are without any foundation, in fact. 12.1 Furthermore, the learned Court below, looking into conflicting testimony and that the third accused-Rataram arrived at the scene at a later time which was corroborated by the eyewitness, did not involve in any heated exchange nor inflicted any injury to the victim, rightly acquitted him of the charges levelled against him. 13. This Court, as an upshot of the above discussion, looking into the record of the case, and the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below against the present accusedappellants, finds that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail in pursuance of the order dated 21.12.2000 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.440/2000. Their bail bonds and sureties are forfeited; they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of the sentence. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.