Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1527 (RAJ)

Harsukh Ram S/o Budha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-09-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
Judgment : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred against the Judgment and sentences dated 25.03.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Court’) in Session case No.33/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted as under:- S.No. Offence Sentence Fine 1. 307/34 IPC 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof to further undergo six months’ R.I. 2. 325/34 IPC 2 Years Rigorous Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in default thereof to further undergo three months‘ R.I. 3. 323/34 IPC 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.100/-; in default thereof to further undergo one month R.I. 2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the complainant - Poora Ram (PW-8) submitted a written report (Exhibit-P/13) stating inter alia that on 09.07.1995, when he was returning to his village after selling milk and reached near the village tank, while Ramniwas S/o Sukha Ram Jat, his uncle Jhumar Ram were coming from the opposite side, one Massey tractor being driven by the accused Harsukh Ram with Peraj Ram and another person sitting in the tractor approached at a very high speed. Said Harsukh Ram with an intention to kill the injured Ram Niwas followed Ram Niwas and rode the tractor over him and thereafter, turned the tractor back and trampled the injured Ram Niwas with the wheels of the tractor, which caused multiple injuries on various parts of his body, including head and right leg resulting in profused bleeding. 3. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet implicating the appellants for various offences and the trial court; after framing charges commenced trial. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, the following persons appeared in the witness box:- Navlaram Bheel (PW-1), Leelaram (PW-2), Dhagla Ram (PW-3), Lakha Ram (PW-4), Dr. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5), Dr. Jagdish Narayan Mathur (PW-6), Ganpat Singh (PW-7), Poora Ram (PW- 8), Harka Ram son of Poona Ram (PW-9), Ram Niwas (PW-10), Hanuman Ram (PW-11), Madho Singh (PW-12), Madan Ram (PW- 13), Harka Ram son of Tilok Ram (PW-14), Radha Kishan (PW-15), Sukha Ram (PW-16), Devkaran (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18). 5. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5), Dr. Jagdish Narayan Mathur (PW-6), Ganpat Singh (PW-7), Poora Ram (PW- 8), Harka Ram son of Poona Ram (PW-9), Ram Niwas (PW-10), Hanuman Ram (PW-11), Madho Singh (PW-12), Madan Ram (PW- 13), Harka Ram son of Tilok Ram (PW-14), Radha Kishan (PW-15), Sukha Ram (PW-16), Devkaran (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18). 5. Apart from the oral testimony, various documents were produced to prove the charges; the appellants, however, did not state anything substantial in their explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. On appraisal of the oral and ocular evidence, the trial court found that the appellants came with a common intention to murder the injured Ram Niwas (PW-10) and repeatedly rode the tractor over him, due to which, he suffered multiple injuries on his legs, hands and ribs out of which some were grave. 6. The injured (PW-10) and complainant (PW-8) appeared in the witness box and supported the prosecution version. Apart from PW-8 and PW-10, two other persons, namely Devkaran (PW- 17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18) were also examined, who too supported the prosecution version as eye-witness. Oral testimony of these witnesses remained uncontroverted despite attempts being made by the counsel for the accused persons during cross examinations of there witnesses. 7. The doctors (PW-5 and PW-6) appeared in the witness box and deposed that there were various injuries suffered by the injured. While exhibiting the X-ray report, Dr. Jagdish Narayan Mathur (PW-6) and Dr. M.L. Choudhary (PW-5) stated that as per X-ray report (Exhibit-P/12), the injured had suffered following injuries:- “1. Swelling with a lacerated wound measuring 4 x 0.5 cm, extending deep to the bone located on the right leg. 2. Abrasion measuring 3 x 2 cm, reddish in color. 3. Abrasion measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm over the right ankle joint. 4. Lacerated wound measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left leg. 5. Abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the right forearm, near the wrist joint. 6. Abrasion measuring 2 x 2 cm on the posterior aspect of the right arm. 7. Irregular abrasion measuring 4 x 4 cm on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. 8. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm, reddish in color, on the right side of the neck. 9. Swelling measuring 2 x 1 cm on the mandible of the right side. 10. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm above the right eye. 11. 7. Irregular abrasion measuring 4 x 4 cm on the dorsal aspect of the left hand. 8. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm, reddish in color, on the right side of the neck. 9. Swelling measuring 2 x 1 cm on the mandible of the right side. 10. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm above the right eye. 11. Abrasion measuring 12 x 7 cm on the posterior aspect of the left side of the back. 12. Abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the nose.” 8. It was also deposed by Dr. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5) that the right leg got fractured and injury No.11 shows fracture in the 5 th 6 th and 7 th ribs. The said witness (PW-5) produced and exhibited X-ray plate (Exhibit-P/11) and the consequential report (P/12). 9. In light of the deposition of the doctors and oral testimony of the witnesses, the trial court concluded that the appellant Harsukh Ram and other accused persons came with a common intention and appellant Nos.2 and 3 instigated appellant No.1 – Harsukh Ram to run the tractor over the injured, so as to kill him. The trial court convicted all the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced them to undergo five years’ imprisonment along with other sentences, which were to run simultaneously. 10. Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and an incident which was apparently an accident has been taken to be an attempt of murder. 11. She argued that the oral and documentary evidence clearly show that it was a case of simple accident, and that the prosecution and the complainant with an oblique motive, falsely implicated the appellants owing to pre-existing animosity between the appellants and the injured. 12. She submitted that during his cross examination, the doctor (PW-6) had opined that if a tractor ran over the ribs of a person, the ribs would be fractured at multiple points and would be splintered into pieces, while also accepting the suggestion that such injuries might have been caused on account of falling over a stone. 13. 12. She submitted that during his cross examination, the doctor (PW-6) had opined that if a tractor ran over the ribs of a person, the ribs would be fractured at multiple points and would be splintered into pieces, while also accepting the suggestion that such injuries might have been caused on account of falling over a stone. 13. She argued that had the appellants, particularly appellant No.1 any intention to murder, he would not have left the injured person on the road with a few injuries – they would have killed the injured then and there. 14. Having said so, learned counsel argued that it was a case of accident and not an attempt to murder, as has been found by the trial Court. She alternatively submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995, when the appellants were young in age (25-27 years) and got emotionally charged being confronted with the injured, who had levelled false allegations against them and their family members, for which, they intended to inflict minor injuries without there being any motive to murder. 15. She prayed that either benefit of doubt be given to the appellants or the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the extent of sentence already undergone. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by Ms. Kaushik and submitted that the evidence of the case clearly establishes that the appellants had rushed towards the injured person with an attempt to murder him, obviously, on account of past enmity between the appellants and the injured. He submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the injured clearly shows that the appellant had left no stone unturned to murder the injured and it was only by sheer luck that the injured survived. 17. He argued that the site inspection report (Exhibit-P/7) so also the testimonies of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-18 show that the appellant No.1 had not only hit the injured once but had also turned the tractor around on 2-3 occasions and run it over the injured person to murder him. 18. He argued that the trial Court has committed no error of law or of facts in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence they have commited. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. 18. He argued that the trial Court has committed no error of law or of facts in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence they have commited. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. On perusal of the oral testimony of the complainant (PW-8), it is apparent that he had seen the incident with his eyes and immediately after the occurrence he went on to lodge a written complaint. Said complainant (PW-8 – Poora Ram) and the injured Ram Niwas (PW-10) appeared in the witness box and completely corroborated the prosecution story in toto, without there being any major deviation. 21. Apart from them, the prosecution has also brought in two eye-witnesses, namely Dev Karan (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18) who too had seen the incident. The testimonies of the doctors (PW-5 and PW-6) show that the injured had suffered multiple injuries and that his leg, arm and ribs got fractured on account of the tractor having run over him. 22. Site inspection report and the statement of the Investigating Officer clearly shows that the tractor had not hit the injured just once. As a matter of fact there is enough evidence to show that the appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram, who was on driving seat had run the tractor over the injured on 2-3 occasions. 23. The fact that there was previous acrimony between the appellants and the injured person has also come on record. Therefore, the motive of the appellants and their intention to cause fatal injuries to the injured is writ large. The manner and the speed at which the tractor had approached the injured person coupled with the fact that the tractor was run over the injured on 2-3 occasions clearly shows that it was not an accident and the appellant had the guilty animus or intention to murder the injured Ram Niwas. 24. This Court is of the view that the overt act of driving and running the tractor over the injured person was accomplished by appellant No.1 - Harsukh Ram; the other appellants who were accompanying him on the tractor were instigating him. 25. This Court is, therefore firmly of the view that the conclusion drawn by trial court in convicting the appellants under Section 307 , 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is the only possible conclusion. 26. 25. This Court is, therefore firmly of the view that the conclusion drawn by trial court in convicting the appellants under Section 307 , 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is the only possible conclusion. 26. Considering that a period of 30 years has passed since the incident took place, this Court feels that the sentence awarded to the appellants deserves to be modified and reduced in the interest of justice, more particularly, in light of the judgment dated 21.12.1988 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Mohammad Yasin Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.825/1998) and judgment dated 13.12.1989 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.122/1986) . 27. In view of what has been observed in preceding paras, though the conviction of the appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram under Section 307 , 323 and 325 and that of the appellant No.2 and 3 Nema Ram and Peraj Ram under Section 307 , 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is upheld, sentence awarded to the appellant Nos.2 and 3 is reduced to the extent of sentence already undergone subject to a condition that both of them pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram who had committed the act of driving the tractor in question is reduced to two years, but the fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 28. Bail bonds of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 is hereby cancelled. So far as the appellant No.1 is concerned, he is directed to surrender before the trial court within 30 days for serving out the remaining part of sentence. In case, the appellant No.1- Harsukh Ram fails to surrender before the trial court within the stipulated period as aforesaid, he be arrested and sent to the jail to complete the total sentence of two years. 29. The aforesaid sentence of two years shall be composite sentence for all the offence viz 307, 323 and 325 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 30. The appellants shall have to pay the increased fine within a period of two months from today. 31. In the event of failure to pay the fine, each of the appellant shall be subjected to Civil Jail for two months. 32. 30. The appellants shall have to pay the increased fine within a period of two months from today. 31. In the event of failure to pay the fine, each of the appellant shall be subjected to Civil Jail for two months. 32. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.