Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Lal & Ors vs State on 28 August, 2017
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 130 / 2015
1. Madhu Lal S/o Shri Mangi lalji
2. Ramlal S/o Shri Madhu lal Ji,
3. Shankar lal S/o Shri Madhulal Ji
4. Kailash @ Kedar S/o Shri Madhu lal Ji,
All are B/c Jat, R/o Dhamana P.S. Kapasan,
District Chittorgarh
5. Smt. Dhapu Bai W/o Shri Madhu lal Ji, B/c Jat
R/o Dhamana, P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kachhwaha
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/08/2017
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.)
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 206/2011 registered at Police station, Kapasan whereby, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants for offence under Sections 302/149 & 148 IPC (2 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] and sentenced them as under :-
U/s 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
U/s 148 IPC One year rigorous imprisonment.
As per brief facts of the case, the complainant Narayan Jat (PW/3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/2) at Police station Kapasan on 05.10.2011 at 5 PM in which following allegations were levelled against the appellants :-
"^lsokesa] Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn;] iqfyl Fkkuk diklu izkFkhZ ukjk;.kyky firk dkywjke th tkV fuoklh & /kek.kk Fkkuk diklu fo"k; & dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djokus ckcrA egksn;th] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd vkt fn- 5-10-2011 dks lk;a 5 cts esjs firk dkywjke th o Hkxokuyky s/o threy th lkyoh fuoklh /kek.kk gekjs eky okys [ksr ij tokj dh Qly ds Qsjk nsus eksVj lkfdy ls x;s Fks djhc vk/ks ?k.Vs ckn esjs firk us gtkjhyky s/o xgjhyky tkV fu- /kek.kk dks eksckbZy Qksu ij crk;k dh Jh ek/kqyky s/o ekaxhyky tkV jkeyky] 'kadjyky] dsnkj s/o ek/kqyky tkV o /kkiq ckbZ w/o ek/kqyky tkV fuoklh /kek.kk tokj dh Qly esa csy pjk jgs gS eSaus mudks vksyck fn;k rks ;g yksx esjs lkFk ekjihV dj jgs gS mDr ckr gtkjhyky us eq>s ?kj ij vk dj crkbZ ftl ij eSa o esjs cM+s firk eksguth] gtkjhyky] dk'khjke tkV eksVj lkbZfdyksa ls jokuk gksdj gekjs eky okys [ksr ij x;s rks ns[kk dh (3 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] gekjs [ksr ds ikl Hkxokuth] 'kksHkkyky s/o Nksxk tkV fu- fxyq.M ds [ksr dh esj ds ikl esjs firk dkyqjke th dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Jh ek/kqyky firk ekaxhyky] jkeyky] 'kadjyky] dsnkj firk ek/kq tkV o /kkiq w/o ek/kqyky tkV fu- /kek.kk gkFkksa esa /kkjh;k dqYkkM+h yV fdlh;k ¼dqnkyh½ ysdj ,d tqV gksdj ekjihV dj jgs Fks esjs firk tehu ij fpYyk jgs Fks cpkoks&cpkoks jkeyky ds ikl /kkjh;k dsnkj ds ikl yV 'kadj ds ikl dqykM+h eknq o /kkiq ds ikl dqnkyh;k Fkh ge T;ksgh ikl x;s rks ;s yksx gesa ns[kdj Hkkx x;sA Hkxokuyky lkyoh nwj [kM+k fpyk jgk Fkk ekSds ij gYyk lqu dj jtkd firk lQ:nhu eqlrkd firk othj [kka eqlyeku fu- /kek.kk Hkh vk x;sA ekjihV ls esjs firk dkyqjketh ds flj ij yykV ij nksuksa gkFkks isjks o 'kjhj ij txg o txg pksVs vkbZ gqbZ gksdj [kqu fudy jgs Fks xaHkhj :i ls xk;y voLFkk esa Fks ftudks ihdi esa Mky dj gkWLihVy diklu yk;s esus Fkkus ij mDr ?kVuk dh lqpuk nh VsyhQksu ls nh gkWLihVy diklu esa esjs firk dk izkFkfed mipkj djk dj csgks'kh gkyr esa bZykt gsrq mn;iqj ysdj tk jgs Fks Qrguxj ds ikl esjs firk dh e`R;q gks xbZ ftudh yk'k ysdj diklu gkWLihVy okil yk;s ftudh yk'k eqnkZ ?kj esa j[kh gqbZ gS fjiksVZ djrk gwW dkjokbZ dh tkos fn- 5-10-2011 On the basis of above written report, formal FIR No. 477/2011 (Ex.P/3) was registered against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 & 302/149 IPC. After registration of FIR, regular investigation was conducted in which all the accused named in the FIR were arrested and recoveries of weapon and other articles were made upon information given by them. The S.H.O. Police station, Kapasan filed chargesheet against all the appellants in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan under Section 147, 148 & 302/149 IPC from where the case was committed to the (4 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] court of District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh for trial.
The learned Sessions Judge after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, framed charges against them for offence under Sections 148, 302 IPC and in the alternative 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.
In the trial, statement of 18 witnesses were recorded including the eye-witnesses and thereafter, statements of all the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and stated that it is a case of false implication.
After recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an opportunity was granted to the accused appellants to lead evidence but no evidence was led by them in their defence.
After recording evidence of both the parties, final arguments were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and ultimately convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 148 IPC and passed sentence as mentioned above.
It emerges from the facts that dispute arose when appellants put their ox in the agriculture field of the deceased where crop of "Jowar" was standing and upon information received from the deceased, when the complainant reached on the spot, he saw that the accused appellants were assaulting the deceased and causing injuries to the deceased and due to those injuries, kalu Ram died on the spot. The dead body of deceased kalu Ram was taken to the hospital where postmortem was conducted by the Medical (5 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] Board and postmortem report (Ex.P/23) was given by the Medical Board of Fatahlal Chandaliya Primary Health Centre, Kapasan. As per postmortem report, 12 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased Kalu Ram and as per opinion of the Medical Board, the deceased died due to antemortem head injury and haemorrhage shock due to antemortem injuries no.3 & 4.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not disputing the incident, took place on 05.10.2011 in the agricultural field of deceased Kalu Ram but submitted that occurrence took place in the spur of the moment, there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy or motive to cause death of the deceased. The occurrence took place when objection was raised by the deceased, Kalu Ram when animals of appellants entered in his agricultural field. Further as per prosecution case, all the appellants were already present at the place of occurrence and deceased Kalu Ram went there upon his motorcycle and raised objection not to put animals in his field and also made a phone call from the mobile phone of one Hazari lal to the complainant that Madu lal, Ram lal, Shankar lal, Kedar and Dhapu Bai are grazing their ox in the crop of "Jowar" and upon raising objection, they are assaulting me. Upon receiving aforesaid information, the complainant Narayan Jat, his elder father Mohan, Kashi Ram and Hazari lal went at the agricultural field of Kalu Ram on motorcycle and saw that the appellants were causing injuries to deceased by axe, lathi and Khudali, when they reached on the spot, the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence after causing injuries upon head, hands and other parts of the body.
(6 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] The deceased was taken to Kapasan hospital from where he was referred to Udaipur hospital for further treatment but Kalu Ram died on the way near Fateh nagar.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that even if entire prosecution case is accepted in toto then also, no offence under Section 302/149 IPC is made out because there was no previous enmity between the parties. The occurrence took place all of sudden when ox of appellants entered in the agricultural field of deceased and started grazing the crops of Jowar. Thus, the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court for offence under Section 302/149 and 148 IPC is liable to be altered to offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence awarded to the accused appellants is deserves to be reduced appropriately.
In support of the arguments, counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Autar & Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2017 (1) CJ (Cri) (SC) 235, Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2017 (3) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 709 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Poona Ram & Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC (Criminal) 144 and prays that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court against the appellants for offence under Section 302/149 & 148 IPC be quashed and it may be altered to offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there is no allegation against the appellant Dhapu Bai for causing any injury which was fatal to cause death. Now she is 65 years of age and her sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated (7 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] 07.04.2015 because she remained in custody for more than three and half years, therefore while altering her conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to 304 Part II of IPC her sentence may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that appellants are not challenging the incident, therefore, it is obvious that they are accepting the entire prosecution evidence in which offence under Section 302/ 149 IPC is made out, therefore, the prayer of the accused appellants for altering the finding of conviction from offence Section 302/149 IPC to 304 Part II IPC is not sustainable in law. It is argued that as per statement of the doctor, at the time of postmortem, 12 injuries were found on the body of deceased Kalu Ram and cause of death was antemortem injuries on the vital parts of the body, therefore, fact of intention can be ascertained from the injuries caused to the deceased Kalu Ram which resulted into his death and therefore, it cannot be said that finding of guilt recorded by the trial court for offence under Section 302/149 IPC is erroneous.
It is also argued that all the appellants were present at the place of occurrence having weapons with them and this fact is sufficient to presume that they were having intention to cause death to the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no question to accept the prayer of appellants to convert the finding of conviction from offence under Section 302/149 to 304 Part II IPC as there is evidence of unlawful assembly having common object and therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, upon (8 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] consideration of evidence, there is no dispute that the incident in question took place in the evening of 05.10.2011 at village Dhamanna in the agriculture field of deceased Kalu Ram Jat where crop of "Jowar" was standing.
Upon perusal of the statements of all the eye-witnesses PW/3 Narayan son of deceased, PW/6 Kashi Ram, PW/7 Mohan lal, brother of deceased, PW/9 Bhagwan lal, PW/10 Razzaq and PW/11 Mustaq and PW/15 Hazari @ Hazari lal, it has been proved by the prosecution that the incident occurred in the field of deceased Kalu Ram Jat at 5 PM in the evening of 05.10.2011 where the deceased went from his home to take care of standing crop situated at Maal. When deceased Kalu Ram reached at his agricultural field, saw that appellants put their ox (animals) in the agricultural field for grazing. As per statement of PW/3 Narayan Jat, the deceased made a phone call from the phone of Hazari lal and informed that Madhu lal and his family members are grazing animals in their field and they might quarrel with him upon raising objection, therefore, asked to come along with other family members at the agricultural field. All the witnesses went on the spot and saw that appellants were causing injuries to the deceased by weapon Kassi, Khudali and Lathi and father of complainant Kalu Ram was crying and upon reaching, all the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence.
The aforesaid facts emerging from the statements of eyewitness loudly speaks that occurrence took place for the reason that appellants put their animals for grazing the agricultural field of deceased where crop was standing, meaning (9 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] thereby, there was no previous enmity in between the appellants and the deceased but all of sudden when objection was raised by the deceased not to put animals in the field, he was assaulted by the appellants.
As per postmortem report, 12 injuries were found upon the various parts of the body of deceased out of which injuries no.3 & 4 were cause of death.
In view of the fact that appellants are not challenging in the incident and evidence on record, we have examined whether any motive was in existence or not or the incident took place all of sudden. It is an admitted fact of the prosecution that the deceased himself went on spot and raised objection when ox of appellants entered in the agricultural field of deceased which is evident from the facts disclosed in the FIR and it was the reason for quarrel, therefore it cannot be said that there was any premeditation or motive of appellants to cause death of deceased.
As per prosecution case, injuries were caused by five appellants and 12 injuries were found upon the body of deceased Kalu Ram out of which injuries no. 1, 2,3 & 4 were incised wound and injuries No. 5,6,7,8 & 9 were contusions and injuries No. 10,11 & 12 were abrasions. As per prosecution evidence, weapon Khudali was recovered from information given by the appellant Madhu lal vide recovery memo Ex.P/16, iron Dharia was recovered upon information given by Ram lal vide recovery memo (Ex.P/17), one axe was recovered at the information given by Shankar lal vide recovery memo Ex.P/19, one lathi was recovered as per information given by appellant Kailash @ Kedar and weapon (10 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] Khudali was recovered as per information given by Dhapu Bai meaning thereby, out of five appellants, four were having sharp edged weapons in their hands. In the cross-examination, PW/9 witness Bhagwan lal gave description that accused Madhu inflicted injury upon head, Ram lal inflicted injury by Dharia, appellant Shankar lal inflicted injury by axe upon hand, appellant Kedar inflicted injury by lathi upon chest and Dhapu having sharp edged weapon Khudali caused injury upon knee of deceased. But as per postmortem report, no incised wound was found upon the knee of deceased which is alleged to caused by Dhapu Bai. But counsel for the appellants is not disputing the presence of Smt. Dhapu Bai who was 60 years of age on the date of occurrence. As per postmortem report, 12 injuries were found upon the body of deceased and allegations are against five persons for causing injuries upon different parts of the body by sharp edged weapon and blunt weapon therefore prayer of the appellants to alter the conviction from offence under section 302/149, 148 IPC requires consideration.
In case of Poona Ram (supra), there were 33 injuries upon the body of deceased and upon appeal filed by the State, the Hon'ble Apex Court converted the conviction of accused respondents from offence under Section 304 Part II to 304 Part I IPC while considering the fact that total 33 injures were found upon different parts of the body including head and there was no intention for causing death of deceased. In this case also, the occurrence took place for the reason that ox (animal) of appellants entered into the agricultural field of deceased for grazing and upon (11 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] objection raised by the deceased he was assaulted by the accused appellants and due to the injuries caused to him in spur of moment, he died. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Ram (Supra) while considering the fact of causing 33 injuries upon the body of deceased without any motive, gave following verdict :-
"On behalf of the Appellant-State, we were shown the medical evidence consisting of deposition of the doctor, PW-24, who had found total 33 injuries, including fracture, injuries on the head and on sixth to eighth ribs. There was lacerated wound on right lung. The death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to head injury and injury to the right lung. The injuries were also found sufficient to cause death. On the basis of the same, it has been submitted that the trial court committed no error in inferring an intention on the part of the accused persons to cause death of the deceased by inflicting so many injuries and, hence the High Court should not have taken a lenient view as done in the order under appeal. He further submitted that even if the intention to cause death cannot be specifically and clearly attributed to the accused persons, they ought to have been convicted for the offence Under Section 304-I and more stringent sentence should have been imposed.
On the other hand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents highlighted the facts noticed above for submitting that in the absence of any specific allegation as to who caused fatal injuries on the head and ribs, all the accused persons cannot be held guilty of offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code because it cannot be said with certainty that they shared a common intention of causing death. None of them had uttered any words to (12 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] disclose such an intention, nor had they come prepared for such offence by carrying fire arms or any lethal weapon. She further submitted that even if the allegation that the accused persons were under influence of liquor is accepted, it does not aggravate the offence and it will not be appropriate in the facts of the case to hold that they all shared any common intention of causing death.
Having considered all the relevant materials and the impugned judgment, as well as the rival contentions, we are of the view that the High Court erred in applying Section 304-II to the offence at hand. Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code would clearly cover such an offence where the accused persons caused indiscriminate assault and some of the injuries proved fatal. By the rashness of their act, the accused persons must be treated to be fully in know of the consequences of their acts including possible death. Hence, in the facts of the case, we set aside the impugned judgment and order under appeal and convict the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offence Under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case and the ends of justice require that the accused persons should serve at least eight years of rigorous imprisonment and also pay a fine of ` 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each and in default undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. We order accordingly. If the fine is realized, the same should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, if any. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent."
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 300 of IPC which reads as under :-
(13 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] "300. Murder--.Except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... Exception 4--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
(14 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] Explanation--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
.........."
In case of Surain Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering Section 300 of IPC gave following finding in para 7 of the judgment which reads as under :-
"7. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code applies in the absence of any premeditation. This is very clear from the wordings of the Exception itself. The exception contemplates that the sudden fight shall start upon the heat of passion on a sudden quarrel. The fourth exception to Section 300 Indian Penal Code covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of provocation not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon an equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly (15 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor could in such cases the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code is not defined in Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general Rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in (16 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] the provision means "unfair advantage".
Further Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering various judgments held that if there is intent and knowledge for causing injury then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to commit murder and bodily injury, then the same would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"16. Thus, if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily injury then the same would fall Under Section 304 Part II. We are inclined to the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the Appellant-accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed the act in question. The incident took place out of grave and sudden provocation and hence the Accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 300 Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code."
While considering the verdict of Honble Apex Court in case of Poona Ram (supra), in which 33 injuries were found upon body of deceased including fractures upon vital parts of the body, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any intent or premeditation, the offence will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surain Singh (supra) held that if there is intent and knowledge then same shall be a case of Section 304 Part I IPC. In this case also upon assessment of evidence, we find that finding of guilt recorded by (17 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] the trial court under Section 302/149 IPC is not sustainable in law because the incident took place all of sudden when objection was raised by the deceased Kalu Ram why animals of appellants entered in my agricultural field, in our opinion, there is no evidence of motive to kill the deceased Kalu Ram and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of accused appellants to alter the offence from Section 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants Madhu lal S/o Mangi lal, Ram lal S/o Madhu lal, Shankar lal S/o Madhu lal and Kailash @ Kedar S/o Madhu lal for offence under Section 302/149 and 148 IPC is quashed and set aside and is altered to offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment passed against them is hereby reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment, however, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 50,000/- against each appellant. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellants within a period of two months failing which the appellants shall undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment. It is also made clear that before depositing the fine, the appellants shall not be released.
As far as accused appellant Dhapu Bai is concerned, although there is allegation for inflicting injury by Khudali upon knee of the deceased Kalu Ram in the statement of PW/9 Bhagwan Lal but it has not been proved because no such injury of sharp edged weapon was found upon the body of deceased (18 of 18) [CRLA-130/2015] though her presence is proved, therefore, we deem it appropriate to alter the conviction of Dhapu Bai from section 302/149 IPC to 304 Part I IPC and to reduce her sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by her, however, the fine is hereby enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellant Dhapu Bai within a period of two months failing which the appellant Dhapu bai will serve further two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of appellant Dhapu Bai was suspended by this court vide order dated 07.04.2015 and she is on bail. Her bail bonds are hereby discharged.
Upon depositing the amount of fine by all the accused appellants, the deposited amount shall be disbursed to the wife of deceased and if she is not alive, then to legal heirs of the deceased Kalu Ram.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. bjsh