Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ganga Ram And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987WLN(UC)363
Author: Ashok Kumar Mathur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Mathur
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Both these appeals arise out of a common order and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh by his order dated 29-4-1976 convicted accused appellants Ganga Ram and Bhajan Singh under Section 302 IPC and accused appellants Boota Ram, Pritam Singh and Chanan Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Bhajan Singh was also convicted under Section 324 IPC and accused Gangaram, Pritam Singh Chanan Singh and Boota Ram were also found guilty under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to 1-1/2 years rigorous imprisonment. All the five accused appellants were also found guilty under Section 148 IPC and they were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found the accused appellants guilty under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts giving rise to this case are that in Chak No. 6 B.P.M. Sardargarh is situated about 30 miles away from Police Station, Suratgarh. In this Chak, the agriculturists get irrigation through panchayat Bari. For management of this Panchayat Bari two Mirabs (for maintaining the distribution of water) were appointed. PW 3 Palasingh was appointed as Mirab for half of the chak and for the remaining half to the chak Boota Ram was the Mirab. On 25-3-1975 the accused persons were getting the irrigation according to their turn and it is was scheduled to be over by 6 p.m. PW 3 Palasing told the accused that since their turn of water is over at 6 p.m. and now it is the turn of Tara Chand PW 1, but the accused did not take any notice of it Thereafter at 9.30 p.m. Palasingh PW 6 along with his brother Modu PW 2 and Bachan Singh their Siri went to PW 1 Tara Chand for getting regular water supply. The accused called them to take the account of water as they have summoned the Panchayat. When PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh along with their Siri Bachansingh deceased reached near the field of Ramu in Kila No. 11 accused Chanan Singh shouted that enemies have come so beat them. Thereupon, accused Chanan Singh came with Saila and assaulted Modu. Bhajan Singh was armed with a Gandasi and he hit Modu on his legs. Thereafter accused Gangaram and Bhajan Singh surrounded deceased Bachan Singh and started beating him. Accused Gangaram hit him on his head and Bhajan Singh hit him on his hand with Gandasi. Accused Pritam Singh and Boota Singh assaulted PW 3 Palasingh. It is alleged that Bachan Singh fell down and died on the spot. It is further alleged that the accused persons took Modu to Karwali Dhani and further assaulted and thereafter left him at Jetsar. Thereafter, PW 2 Modu reached at the Police Station, Suratgarh in the jeep of one Gopi and filed the First Information Report on 26-3-1975 at 9.30. On this a case was registered against the accused persons and the investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer reached at the scene of occurrence and sent the body of the deceased Bachan Singh for post mortem. The injuries of PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh were also examined. After close necessary investigation, the accused persons were charged under Sections 302, 307/149 & 148 IPC. The case was ultimately committed to the court of Sessions and the accused persons Gangaram and Bhajan Singh were charged under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 and 148 IPC. Accused Chanan Singh, Pritam Singh, Boota Ram were charged under Section 302 read with Section, 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 148 IPC.
3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. The accused denied the charges. Accused Bhajan Singh took the plea that he was not on the scene of occurrence. The other accused have taken plea that the wife of Modu had an illicit intimacy with Bachan Singh, deceased, therefore, Modu and Palasingh have done away with Bachan Singh and this case is falsely foisted on them. They denied the giving of any information of Saila and Gandasi. The accused did not produce any witness in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the necessary trial, found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated 29-4-1976 the accused appellants have preferred these appeals.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the judgment and the necessary record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants have seriously urged that there are only two eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh. Both are real brothers. Therefore, their testimony have to be examined with great amount of caution. Learned Counsel has urged that both the witnesses are not reliable and it is not possible for them to see in the dark as to who were the assailants. We have gone through the testimony of PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh. PW 3 Pala Singh was a Merab and it was his responsibility to enforce the panchayat Bari and in order to discharge his duty he asked the accused to stop the supply of water so that another person PW I Tan Chand may get his supply of water. This appears to have not been liked by these accused appellants, therefore they have resorted to this beating. Both PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh have deposed that the night was dark but the persons were visible from 2 to 3 feet. All these assailants were known to the witnesses as they are residents of the same chak and beating has (taken place from 2 to 3 fit, as all the persons namely, PW 2 Modu PW 3 Palasingh and Bachan Singh deceased have received injuries and in that fight deceased Bachan Singh has also died. Thus, so far as the identity of the assailants is concerned, the same cannot be disputed. The names of the assailants find mention in the First Information Report which was filed on the next morning. Though the accused persons have also received injuries, namely, Gangaram, Bootaram, Pritam Singh and Chanan Singh but they wanted to resile from this at a later stage so as to deny their presence at the scene of occurrence. But the fact remains that they did receive injuries and similarly PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh also received injuries and deceased Bachan Singh died at the scene of occurrence as a result of this fight In these circumstances, it cannot be disputed that these accused persons were the assailants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found them guilty on the basis of the testimony of PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants have streneously urged that even if the accused persons are the assailants still they never intended to cause death of deceased Bachan Singh and their purpose was only to beat them and not to kill them. It has further been pointed out that if the accused persons had really intended to kill any body then when they took Modu they would not spared him also Learned Counsel submitted that the intention of the accused was to belabour the victim and the nature of injuries will also show that it was not intended to cause such bodily injury so as to cause death of the deceased. We are of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel is sustainable. In fact, looking to the nature of injuries caused to the deceased and PW 2 Modu and PW 3 Palasingh, it cannot be said that the accused persons really wanted to cause the death of the deceased. But their whole purpose was to resist PW 3 Palasingh from changing the water supply from the accused persons field to that of PW 1 Tara Chand. Thus, on account of this the whole altercation arose and it was not intended to cause death of any of the victims Having regard to the injuries received by the deceased Bachan Singh we are of the view that it would not be safe to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, we convert the conviction of accused Ganga Singh and Bhajan Singh from 302, IPC to 304. Part-II, IPC and Boota Ram, Pritam Singh and Chanan Singh from 302/149 to 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. The accused Bhajan Singh at the time of conviction was aged 19 to 20 years i.e. below 21 years of age. Thus, except accused Bhajan Singh all the four accused persons, namely, Gangaram, Pritam Singh, Boota Ram and Chanan Singh are sentenced to 5 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years. The amount of Rs. 3,500/- should be paid to the wife or dependents of the victim Bachan Singh out of the fine if so realised from the accused persons. The accused persons are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are given one month's time to surrender themselves before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh to serve out the remaining sentence failing which the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall get them arrested to serve out the remaining sentence.
7. The accused Bhajan Singh is given benefit of probation and he shall execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,500/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so. He is on bail, he need not surrender. One month's time is allowed to him to furnish the personal bond, and sureties.
8. The conviction of the accused persons under Sections 148 and 324 and 323 IPC is affirmed. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently except in the case of Bhajan Singh who has been released on probation.
9. In the result, these appeals are disposed of as indicated above.