Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 306 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sadhu Singh

2023-01-27

FARJAND ALI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - These two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 07.08.1992 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.40/1991, whereby the trial court has acquitted appellant/respondents Mal Singh, Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram and Mani Ram from the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST Act'), however, convicted the appellants/respondents Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram and Mani Ram for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part 2 IPC and sentenced them for 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' simple imprisonment. 2. The appeal No.421/1992 has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, whereas the appeal No.307/1992 has been preferred on behalf of appellants/respondents Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram and Mani Ram. 3. It is noticed that during the pendency of the present appeals, appellant/respondent Bhola Ram died and appeals qua him were abated vide order dated 17.01.2000 by this Court, whereas both the appeals against the appellant/respondent Sadhu Singh have been abated on 12.12.2022 while noticing that he has expired on 05.08.2009. 4. Now, the present appeals remain in relation to the appellants Mani Ram and Mal Singh. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan (Ex./2) of Hansraj, the police registered an FIR against the appellant/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 307 and 323/34 IPC, however, after registration of FIR, Hansraj died, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant/respondents and the trial court framed charges against appellant/respondent Mani Ram for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and framed charges against the appellants Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram and Mal Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2) (V) of the SC/ST Act. 6. To prove the charges against the appellant/respondents, the prosecution produced as many as 9 witnesses and also got exhibited several documents. The statements of the appellant/respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence D.W.-1 Gola Devi was also produced on behalf of the appellant/respondents. 7. 6. To prove the charges against the appellant/respondents, the prosecution produced as many as 9 witnesses and also got exhibited several documents. The statements of the appellant/respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence D.W.-1 Gola Devi was also produced on behalf of the appellant/respondents. 7. The trial court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as by the defence and after hearing the counsel for the parties has passed the impugned judgment. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the appellant/respondents from the offence punishable under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that the trial court has also grossly erred in acquitting the appellant/respondent Mal Singh from the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. It is argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant/respondents beyond reasonable doubt, but the trial court has erred in holding that the appellant/respondents had no intention to kill the deceased, but only had knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased with iron rod and stick might result into his death. It is also submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was a member of the scheduled caste community and the appellant/respondents being the residents of the same village were aware about his caste and as such, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act is perfectly made out and proved against the appellant/respondents, but the trial court has illegally acquitted them from the said charges. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the appellant/respondents may suitably be punished for the charges framed against them by the trial court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Ramandeep Singh appearing for the respondents/appellant has opposed the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and argued that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents/appellant from the offences punishable under Section 302 and 302/34 read with Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel has argued that so far as the acquittal of respondent/appellant Mal Singh from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC is concerned, the same does not suffer from any illegality because the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge against the respondent Mal Singh. Learned counsel has argued that so far as the acquittal of respondent/appellant Mal Singh from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC is concerned, the same does not suffer from any illegality because the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge against the respondent Mal Singh. It is submitted that respondent Mal Singh was not named in the FIR and later on he was falsely implicated and the trial court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution has rightly acquitted him from the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. 10. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the respondents/appellant Sadhu Singh and Bhola Ram have died and the appeals preferred by them have already been abated, there is no requirement to make any submission on behalf of them, however, the learned counsel has argued that so far as findings of the trial court of holding the appellant/respondent Mani Ram guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 2 IPC is concerned, he is not challenging the said finding, but only praying that the sentence of 5 years awarded to appellant Mani Ram by the trial court is too harsh and the same may be reduced up to the period already under gone by the him. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 12. The appeal filed by respondent Sadhu Singh and Bhola Ram has already been abated due to the their death and, therefore, we are not required to consider about the findings of the trial court in respect of them. 13. Now, in the present appeals, we have to analize whether the prosecution have proved the charges against appellant/respondents Mani Ram and Mal Singh by producing cogent and reliable evidence. 14. First of all, we look into the case of the respondent Mal Singh. The trial court has acquitted the respondent Mal Singh from the charges levelled against him while observing that he was not named by deceased Hansraj in his parcha bayan and he was implicated in the case at a later stage. No recovery of any weapon is effected at the instance of Mal Singh. The trial court has acquitted the respondent Mal Singh from the charges levelled against him while observing that he was not named by deceased Hansraj in his parcha bayan and he was implicated in the case at a later stage. No recovery of any weapon is effected at the instance of Mal Singh. It is to be noticed that in his parcha bayan (Ex./2) the deceased Hansraj had named Sadhu Singh, Mani Ram and Bhola Singh, but has not specifically named respondent Mal Singh and stated that along with the above-named three persons, one unknown person was also present. Though P.W.-2 Prahalad, in his court statement, has stated that when he and deceased Hansraj were heading towards their house, then suddenly the accused persons, namely, Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram, Mani Ram and Mal Singh came there and caught hold of deceased Hansraj; they assaulted him and, thereafter, forcibly took him away in the house of Sadhu Singh and mercilessly assaulted him. 15. However, the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of P.W.-2 while observing that his presence at the scene of crime is doubtful and he cannot be treated as an eye-witness of the alleged incident. Except P.W.-2, no other independent witness has been produced by the prosecution, who could witness the said incident. The prosecution has failed to produce any other incriminating evidence to prove the charge against appellant/respondent - Mal Singh. Hence, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the appellant/respondent - Mal Singh from the charges levelled against him vide impugned judgment. 16. So far as the case of the appellant/respondent - Mani Ram is concerned, in his court statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he himself had admitted that he assaulted the deceased with an iron rod because he entered into the house of Sadhu Singh with intention to kidnap Sadhu Singh's daughter. It is to be noticed that Sadhu Singh had reported to the Police that the deceased entered into their house and was armed with a 'shela' (a kind of sharp edged agriculture equipment) and caught hold of his daughter and when she raised cry, he and the other persons rescued her and had beaten the deceased and at present, he is lying in his house. The said information given by Sadhu Singh was recorded by the Police in daily diary (roj namcha) and exhibited as Exp./18. 17. The trial court has also noticed that all the injuries on the body of the deceased are on his legs, though, the injuries are grievous in nature, however, if the injury No.9 would not have been inflicted, the life of the deceased could have been saved. 18. Having gone through the above piece of evidence, we are also of the opinion that from the said evidence, it can be gathered that the appellant/respondents had no intention to kill the deceased, but certainly, had knowledge that the injuries inflicted by them may cause death of the deceased. 19. In such circumstances, we find no illegality in the conclusion arrived by the trial court that the appellant/respondent Mani Ram is guilty of committing offence under Section 304 Part 2 IPC and not of 302 IPC. 20. So far as the acquittal of the appellant/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, we also agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. Hence, the same does not call for any interference. 21. It is noticed that the incident is of the year 1991 and had taken place on the spur of the moment when the appellants/respondents saw the deceased in their house in the night and they attacked the deceased while apprehending that he may cause harm to the daughter of Sadhu Singh. The appellant/respondents were not armed with deadly weapons and injury inflicted on the body of the deceased was not on any vital part but on leg. Mani Ram inflicted the injury to the deceased with 'sabal' (an iron rod), which is also used for agricultural purposes and is available in almost every agriculturist's house. From the arrest memo, it can be gathered that at the time of arrest of appellant/respondent Mani Ram, he was 29 years of age and as such at present, he is around 60 years of age. He was arrested on 16.07.1991 and remained in custody till the impugned judgment was passed. His sentence was suspended by this Court on 01.12.1992 and as such, he remained in custody for around one year and four months. 22. He was arrested on 16.07.1991 and remained in custody till the impugned judgment was passed. His sentence was suspended by this Court on 01.12.1992 and as such, he remained in custody for around one year and four months. 22. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of five years awarded to the appellant/respondent Mani Ram to the period of sentence already undergone by him during trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal. 23. Ordered accordingly. 24. In the result, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.421/1992 filed by the State is dismissed and the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.307/1992 preferred on behalf of Mani Ram is partly allowed. He is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. He need not surrender. 25. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.