Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ridmal Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987WLN(UC)293
Author: Ashok Kumar Mathur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Mathur
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 31-7-1982, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants Ridmal Singh, Bhakariya, Bhinya Ram, Jabaria, under Sections 302 read with Sections 149, 447, 148 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 with a fine of Rs- 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to one year's rigorous imprisonment, one month's simple imprisonment under Section 447, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 148 and two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. Accused appellants Hari Ram and Mohan Ram were also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in defualt of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 447 one month's simple imprisonment; under Section 147 two months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323 two months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Shiv Ram and Sawai Ram.
3. The accused appellants have preferred this appeal against their aforesaid conviction and sentence.
4. The facts giving rise to this case are that in the Gram Panchayat Udliawas under the famine relief operations a road was being constructed. At 4.30 p.m. Bhiksingh (PW 2) was standing before the gate of Rajputs houses where the hand pump was being dug. Modaram and Dhanaram came running and informed that Mallaram had gone on famine works in a drunken condition with a sword and has picked a quarrel. The stones are being thrown at that place and there is a likelihood of blood-shed. Bhikhsingh told Madansingh and Jabarsingh that they should proceed to the site & he was going to the police station to bring police on the scene. He reached to the police station at 5 30-5.45 p.m. PW 3 Malukaram, Station House Officer, Bilara reached Udliawas and there he found the dead body of deceased Mallaram is lying on bis well. He received number of incised wounds and they were bleeding. There, PW 1, Birma Ram submitted a written report Ex. P 1. He disclosed in this report that in the village there is a field bearing Khasra No. 1018 measuring 2 bigha 4 biswas and another field bearing Khasra No. 1021 measuring 4 bigha 6 biswas. On 20-6-1981 Ridmalsingh threatened to take possession of these fields. He approached the father of Ridmal Singh namely Umedsingh, but without any result. Likewise, he approached some other villagers but no body came to his rescue. When he along with Mallaram, Motilal and Achaluram were going towards their house at that time Ridmal Singh, Umedsingh, Bagaram, Bhinwada, Devaram, Haria, Jabaria, Bhakaria, Mohania and Sawaida by caste Bawri and Shivram came there. Bhinwada was armed with Kawadia, Bhakaria was armed with Kawadia. Hardeva was armed with Padi. Jabaria had a pharasi, Shivram was armed with Bewda, Ridmalsingh was armed with Sword, Haria was armed with Lathi, Balwanta was armed with Lathi and Umedsingh was also armed with Lathi. They came to their house and gave a severe beating to Mallaram. He tried to intervene then he was told to keep mum. Thereafter, Ridmal Singh Haria, Jabaria and Bhakaria belaboured deceased Mallaram. While he was going to make a report to the Police Station, Bilara he was prevented from going to the police station. Meanwhile PW 3 Malukaram arrived at the scene and took up the investigation. The body of the deceased was seized, a site inspection memo was prepared and the written report which was given by Birmaram was sent through F.C. Nandram at the police station. On that basis the FIR was registered. Thereafter, Pratapsingh PW 19 came on the scene and further investigation, was taken up by him. After close of the investigation 8 accused persons were challaned. The prosecution examined about 19 witnesses and got 61 documents exhibited. The learned Sessions Judge after due trial found the six accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid and acquitted the two accused persons. The six accused appellants have preferred this appeal against their aforesaid conviction and sentence before this Court.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, and have also gone through the record.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the finding for the learned Sessions Judge though an attempt has been made to show that this is a case of over-implication. But having gone through the statements of the eyewitnesses and the record we find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted all the accused appellants.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has seriously urged that even if the case of prosecution, as it stands, is accepted and specially in view of the testimony of Dr. K N. Mathur, PW 12 who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased, the offence cannot travel beyond Section 304, Part-11, IPC. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel it is necessary to examine the injuries of the deceased. The deceased has received as many as 16 injuries. They read as under:
(1) Compound fracture with incised wound 4 inch x 1 inch cutting both tibia and fibula bones on middle and anterior aspect of right leg (the wound was elliptic in shape and placed obliquely); (2) There was multiple fractures of left upper arm;
(3) An incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch x 3/4 inch on medial and lower 1/3rd part of right leg; (4) Incised wound 1 inch x 1/2 inch x deep muscles of upper 1/3rd part on lateral aspect of right leg; (5) Incised wound 2 inches x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch on lower 1/3rd and anterior aspect of left leg; (6) Incised wound 2 inches x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch on lower 1/3rd on anterior aspect of left leg half inch below the injury No. 5; (7) Incised wound 2 inches x 1/2 inch x 1/4 inch on lower 1/3rd on anterior aspect of left leg 1/4 inch below injury No. 6; (8) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 inch placed transversely on middle of upper arm of left side; (9) Incised wound 1.5 x 1/2 inch into muscle deep places vertically on anterior aspect of right upper arm; (10) Incised wound 1.5 x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch two inches below injury No. 9 on the same arm; (11) Incised wound 1.5 inch x 1/2 x 1/4 inch elleptical shape placed transversely on medial aspect of upper arm; (12) Incised wound 1 x 1/4 x 1/4 inch one inch below injury No. 11;
(13) Abrasion 2 x 1 inch on pinna of right ear;
(14) Bruise 6 x 3 inches on left upper arm;
(15) Bruise 3 x 1 inch on fore-head;
(16) Bruise 2 x 1 inch on fore-head half inch below injury No. 15.
8. Learned Counsel submitted that not a single injury has been caused on vital part of the body of the deceased. Second, learned Counsel has specifically invited our attention to the opinion of the PW 12 Dr. K.N. Mathur. In the post mortem report, where in Dr. Mathur, has categorically stated that in his opinion the cause by of death of Mallaram was shock due to haemorrahage causing multiple injuries and wounds on different parts of the body. But at the same time he has also stated that in ordinary course of nature such injuries can cause death of the injured. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the opinion of Dr. Mathur it is apparent that in the ordinary course of nature these injuries were not sufficient to cause death. Thus, it makes a lot of difference between the fact that these injuries could cause death and in the ordinary course of nature the injuries were sufficient to cause death. Thus, learned Counsel submits that in view of the fact that no injury has been caused on the vital part of the body and in view of the opinion of the Doctor taking the case of the prosecution at best the offence cannot travel beyond section 304, Part-II, IPC.
9. We are inclined to agree with this submission of the learned Counsel. It is true that in the present case there is no injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased. However, the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage caused by multiple injuries, but in view of the opinion of the Doctor that such injuries ca cause death but, he has not said that these injuries taken together were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. Thus, the offence cannot travel beyond section 304, Part-II, IPC.
10. Thus, in the result, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and convict the accused appellants under section 304, Part-II, IPC read with section 149 and sentence the accused appellants Ridmalsingh son of Umedsingh, Bhiya Ram son of Hardev, Bhakariya son of Binya Ram and Jabria son of Bhinyaram to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment, however, conviction of these appellants under other actions in maintained but all the sentences shall run concurrently.
12. Mr. S.N. Deedwania, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that accused Mohanram s/o Hardeva and Hari Ram s/o Hardev are said to have been armed with lathis and they are arrested on 27-7-1981. Accused Mohanram was bailed out by this Court on 25-8-1983 and Hari Ram on 9-9-1983. Learned Counsel submits that the offence has taken place way back in 1981 and these accused appellants have already served out sentence for more than 2 years and it would be unfair to send them again to jail in 1987. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the ends of justice will be meet by reducing the sentence of these accused appellants to sentence already undergone by them.
13. In the peculiar circumstances of this case that accused appellant Mohanram and Hariram are said to be armed with lathis only and the conviction of the accused appellants has been converted from section 302 read with Section 149, IPC to Section 304, Part-II, IPC read with Section 149, the ends of justice will be met by reducing their sentence to the sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further under rigorous imprisonment for four months. The conviction under other sections is maintained, but the sentence awarded to them shall run concurrently. They are on bail so they need not surrender.
14. Out of the amount of fine, if so recovered, a sum of Rs. 4,000/-shall be paid to the wife or dependents of deceased Malaram.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above.