Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Babu Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 28 August, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 375/2016
1. Sitaram Son of Shri Jagannath, By caste Jat, R/o of Bad Ki
Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rohtash Son of Shri Bagaram @ Kishan Lal, By caste Jat, R/o
Dholya ki Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District
Jaipur (Raj)
3. Hanuman Son of Chhagan, By caste Jat, R/o Dholya ki Dhani,
Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj)
4. Memaram @ Gopal Son of Shri Jagannath, By caste Jat, R/o
Dholya ki Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District
Jaipur (Raj)
5. Mohan lal Son of Shri Jagannath, By caste Jat, R/o Dholya ki
Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj)
6. Prakash Son of Shri Kishan lal @ Bagaram, By caste Jat, R/o
Dholya ki Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District
Jaipur (Raj)
7. Kaluram Son of Shri Lachhu Ram,By caste Jat, R/o Dholya ki
Dhani, Tan Maid, Police Station virat Nagar, District Jaipur (Raj)
(Accused/Appellants are presently at central jail Jaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 404/2016
1. Babu Lal Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Dholiyan, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur.
2. Puran Mal Son of Shri Omkar, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Dholiyan, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
3. Durga Ram Son of Shri Nathu, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Dholiyan, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
4. Jeevan Son of Shri Omkar, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Dholiyan, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
5. Ramchandra Son of Shri Prahlad, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Bad, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
6. Sita Ram Son of Shri Prahlad, By caste Jat, R/o Dhani Bad, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
7. Mukesh Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai, By caste Jat, R/o Dholya (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (2 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] Ki Dhani, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
8. Hari Ram Son of Shri Omkar, By caste Jat, R/o Dholya Ki Dhani, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur
9. Hem Raj Son of Shri Nathu Ram, By caste Jat, R/o Dholya Ki Dhani, Tan Med, Police Station Viratnagar, District Jaipur (Accused Appellants are now in Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar in Appeal No.375/16 Mr. P.K. Sharma with Mr. Manish Sharma in Appeal No.404/16 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P. for State Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Ajay Singh Tanwar, for complainant.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment/Order 28/08/2019 Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
The appellants have filed the above mentioned appeals challenging the judgment/order dated 21.3.2016 passed by the trial court whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Appellants - Babulal and Pooran Mal U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
(3 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] U/s. 325/149 IPC: Two years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC: Three months imprisonment. U/s. 341/149 IPC: One month imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: One year imprisonment.
U/s. 354 IPC: Three years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default thereof to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment..
Appellant - Jeevan U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC: Two years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC: Three months imprisonment. U/s. 341/149 IPC: One month imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: One year imprisonment.
Appellant - Mukesh U/s. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC: Two years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC: Three months imprisonment. U/s. 341/149 IPC: One month imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: One year imprisonment.
U/s. 354 IPC: Three years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
(4 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] Appellants - Durga Ram, Sitaram s/o Jagannath, Ram Chandra, Sitaram s/o Prahlad, Rohitash, Hanuman, Memaram @ Gopal, Mohanlal, Hari Ram, Prakash, Kaluram, Hemraj U/s. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC: Two years imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC: Three months imprisonment. U/s. 341/149 IPC: One month imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: One year imprisonment.
Prosecution case was set into motion on the basis of the report (Ex.P.6) lodged by the complainant Ramesh Chandra (PW.2). On the basis of report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR (Ex.P.7) bearing No.86 dated 26.5.2012 was registered at Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur Rural under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302/354 IPC.
Prosecution story as per the FIR, in brief, was that on 25.5.2012 Mamta, niece of the complainant, had gone to answer the call of nature in nearby fields at about 5.00 AM. Pooran Mal alongwith others took away Mamta in a Jeep/Car on finding her alone. The said persons outraged the modesty of Mamta and told her that in case she would narrate the incident to her family members then she and her family members would be done to death. Some passersby informed their family members on seeing Mamta. The said persons used to harass Mamta while going to school. On 25.5.2012 at about 5.30/6.30 PM, Ramesh Chandra and his brother Kajod Mal, Maliram, Arjun were doing construction (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (5 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] work of temple near Bus Stand and when they complained to Hanuman Jatav and Kishan @ Bagaram Jat and Nathu, relatives of Pooran Mal, then said persons told the complainant and his brother that they would come with 'Barat'. They started abusing them and by making phone call they called their other family members and close relatives to the spot. All the said persons while armed with iron rods and sticks, attacked the complainant. When Kajod Mal intervened to save the complainant, then Babulal, Jeevan Ram and Pooran Mal attacked Kajod Mal with sticks and iron rod and he died at the spot. Bhairu Ram, Mali Ram, Arjun, Shambhu, Kailash, Lokesh also suffered injuries in the incident.
Some other persons reached the spot and rescued them. They had been attacked by Babulal, Jeevan Ram, Mukesh, Memaram, Sitaram, Mohan, Ramkaran, Rohitash S/o. Jagannath, Bagaram @ Kishan, Prakash, Shaitan, Rohitash S/o. Bagaram @ Kishna, Hanuman, Kaluram, Durgaram, Hemaram, Hariram, Pooranmal, Dhannaram, Kamlesh and their close relatives Sitaram Kodiya and Ram Chandra.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challans were presented against the appellants in stages.
Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149, 341/149 and 148 IPC and against appellants Pooran, Babulal and Mukesh, charge was also framed under Section 354 IPC.
Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 36 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent. Appellants examined two (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (6 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] witnesses in their defence. The trial court ordered conviction and sentence of the appellants vide the impugned judgment/order, as mentioned herein above. Hence, present appeals by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Appellants have been falsely involved in this case. In fact, appellant Pooran Mal and Mamta were having a love affair. Due to this grievance, appellants have been falsely involved in this case. Deceased had suffered injuries on account of fall on stones where the construction work was going on. All the relatives fo appellant Pooran Mal have been falsely involved in this case. Occurrence had taken place at the Bus Stand. Family of Pooran Mal were running taxi service and were present at the Bus Stand on this account where the complainant party had arrived and raised a dispute with them. At the most, it could be said to be a case of sudden fight and the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out.
Learned State Counsel who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeals and has submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each-other, had formed an unlawful assembly and had come to the spot armed with weapons and had attacked the complainant party. One person had died in the incident, whereas seven persons had suffered injuries. Hence, intention of the appellants was clear that they had come to the spot with a view to commit the offence of murder. Modesty of Mamta was outraged by the appellant Pooran Mal and others in the morning of 25.5.2012 and when the complainant party had complained about the said fact, they had been attacked by the appellants.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
(7 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] Present case relates to murder of Kajod Mal and injuries suffered by the injured Ramesh, Mali Ram, Arjun, Shimbhu, Kailash, Lokesh and Bhairu Ram. Thus, the present case rests on eye-witness account.
Complainant Ramesh Chandra while appearing in the witness box as PW.2 deposed that on 25.5.2012 at about 5.00 AM his niece Mamta and Nanchhi Devi (mother of Mamta) and Manni Devi (aunt of Mamta) had gone to answer the call of nature. Pooran alongwith Shaitan and Mukesh forcibly took Mamta in their Jeep and outraged her modesty. Mamta raised an alarm and all the three threatened her and told her that in case she raised alarm, they would kill her and her family members. On hearing the alarm raised by Mamta, persons nearby encircled the Jeep and rescued Mamta. On reaching home, Mamta disclosed the incident to them and they narrated the same to his brother Kajod. Kajod suggested that they would talk to them in the evening. He alongwith his brother Kajod were doing construction work at the temple. In the evening Deepak came and told his father Kajod that he had been abused by Pooran, Babulal and Hari. Then Kajod stated that they would talk to elders and not to the boys. At about 5.30-6.00 PM, Baggaram, Hanuman and Nathu Ram alongwith Kajod met the accused. Accused said that they would come with a 'Barat' or would forcibly take her away. Baggaram, Hanuman, Nathuram made phone calls to their family members and about 22 persons reached there in two vehicles, i.e., Babulal, Mukesh, Hemraj, Durga, Jeevan, Hariram, Pooran, Kamlesh, Sitaram, Memaram, Mohan, Ramkaran, Rohitash, Bagaram, Kaluram, Prakash, Shaitan, Rohitash S/o. Bagaram, Hanuman, Ram Chandra, Sitaram and they encircled Kajod. The said persons were armed (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (8 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] with sticks and iron rods. Pooran, Hemraj, Mohan, Hari were armed with iron rods, whereas others were armed with sticks. Pooran gave two iron rod blows on the head of Kajod and Babulal gave blow on right temporal area of Kajod. Jeevan gave stick blow on the back side of head of Kajod. Then Kajod fell down on the ground. Thereafter all the accused inflicted injuries to him. Ramesh, Maliram, Arjun, Lokesh, Bhairu Ram, Kailash tried to rescue Kajod and they were also inflicted injuries by the accused. He had been inflicted injuries by Pooran and Jeevan. Hari had inflicted a stick blow to him. Kajod died at the spot. Thereafter, police came to the spot and conducted the proceedings.
PW.4 Manni, PW.5 Deepak, PW.6 Maliram, PW.7 Arjun, PW.8 Banshidhar, PW.9 Bhairu, PW.12 Sitaram, PW.16 Ghisalal, PW.26 Kailash, PW.27 Lokesh, PW.28 Shimbhu Dayal, PW.29 Kaluram, PW.30 Nanchhi Ram and PW.33 Mahaveer Yadav, have corroborated the statement of PW.2 Ramesh.
PW.10 Dr. S.K. Sahariya deposed that on 25.5.2012 he had medically examined injured Ramesh and proved medico-legal examination report Ex.P.8. He stated that Ramesh had suffered one simple injury. He further deposed that on the same day he had medico-legally examined injured Arjun and proved the medico-legal examination report Ex.P.16. He deposed that he referred injury No.1 for X-ray examination and remaining injuries were simple in nature. On the same day, he had also examined injured Bhairu Ram and proved his medico-legal examination report Ex.P.17. He deposed that all the injuries suffered by injured Bhairu Ram were simple in nature. He further deposed that he had medico-legally examined injured Lokesh and had found one simple injury on his person and other injury was complain of pain. He (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (9 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] proved medico-legal examination report of Lokesh as Exhibit-P.18. He also medico-legally examined Shambhu Dayal and found that he was complaining of pain in his right shoulder. He proved medico-legal examination report of Shambhu Dayal as Ex.P.19. He also examined injured Maliram and found three injuries on his person. Injuries no.1 and 2 were simple in nature, whereas injury No.3 was referred for X-ray examination. He proved the medico- legal examination report Ex.P.20. After X-ray examination, he gave the report that injury No.3 was grievous in nature. He also examined injured Kailash. The said injured had stated that he was having pain in his body. He proved medico-legal examination report of Kailash as Ex.P.23. He also medico-legally examined Durga Prasad on 28.5.2012 and found one injury on his person and proved his medico-legal examination report Ex.P.24. On the same day, he also examined injured Babulal and found one simple injury on his person and proved his medico-legal report as Ex.P.25.
Dr. S.K. Sahariya (PW.10) further deposed that on 26.5.2012 he had conducted post-mortem of dead body of Kajod and proved the post-mortem report as Exhibit-P.26.
As per post-mortem report (Ex.P.26), deceased Kajod had suffered following injuries:-
1) Lacerated wound on scalp 5cm x 0.5cm forehead injury,
2) Lacerated wound 7cm x 0.5cm on scalp top,
3) Lacerated wound 4cm x 0.5cm on scalp right side,
4) Lacerated wound 3cm x 0.5cm on base of right thumb,
5) Lacerated wound 1cm x 0.5cm on right hand index finger,
6) Bruise 2cm x 2cm on right shoulder
7) Bruise 10cm x 2cm on back left
8) Bruise 10cm x 3cm on back right side (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (10 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] As per post-mortem report, cause of death of deceased Kajod was neurogenic shock and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
Other witnesses have deposed with regard to investigation conducted in the case. During investigation, accused-appellants were arrested and recovery of iron rod was affected from appellants Pooranmal, Hemraj, Hariram, Mohan Lal, whereas, from other accused sticks were recovered on the basis of their respective disclosure statements.
So far as the incident which had occurred in the morning of 25.5.2012 is concerned when Mamta had allegedly gone to answer the call of nature, appears to be doubtful. In the FIR, it had been stated by the complainant that Mamta had gone alone to answer the call of nature, whereas, thereafter improvement was made by the prosecution witnesses and it was alleged that Mamta was accompanied by her mother and her paternal aunt when she had gone to answer the call of nature. Initially in the FIR only accused Pooran Mal was named as the person who had taken Mamta in the Jeep, whereas, thereafter prosecution witnesses have introduced the names of accused Shaitan and Mukesh as the persons who were accompanying Pooran Mal. We are of the opinion that the incident of outraging of the modesty of Mamta is doubtful because it had come on record during trial that Mamta and Pooran Mal were having love affair. PW.28 Shimbhu Dayal who is uncle of Mamta, admitted in his cross-examination that Mamta was having love affair with Pooran Mal. He also admitted that family members of Pooran Mal had met Ramavtar and had told him that he should keep his daughter under control. Thus, possibility that Mamta might have met Pooran Mal of her own free will in the morning (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (11 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] while she had gone to answer the call of nature, cannot be ruled out. Mamta might have been seen by the villagers and story was concocted regarding outraging of her modesty. Hence, the charge under Section 354 IPC framed against accused Pooran Mal, Babulal and Mukesh is not established beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the said appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 354 IPC.
DW.1 Dashrath deposed that, in fact, deceased had suffered injuries as he had fallen from the scaffolding. The witness deposed that he had fled away from the spot. In case this witness had actually seen Kajod falling from scaffolding, then there was no occasion for him to have run away from the spot. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of DW.1.
DW.2 Panchu Ram has also deposed that Kajod had suffered injuries as he had fallen from the roof. However, in his cross- examination he deposed that he had heard that Kajod had suffered injuries on account of fall. Hence, statement of DW.2 also fails to advance the case of the appellants.
From the ocular version and the medical evidence it is established that in the incident which had occurred in the evening on 25.5.2012, Kajod had died on account of injuries inflicted to him and Ramesh, Mali Ram, Arjun, Shimbhu, Kailash, Lokesh and Bhairu Ram had suffered injuries.
The question that requires consideration is as to whether all the appellants had come to the spot by forming an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party. (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
(12 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] In this regard, PW.2 Ramesh in his cross-examination deposed that Nathu Ram, Bagga Ram and Hanuman had met them at the Bus Stand opposite the temple, all of a sudden.
PW.4 Manni has deposed in her cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden.
PW.5 Deepak has also deposed in his cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place suddenly.
PW.28 Shimbhu Dayal in his cross-examination deposed that family members of Pooran Mal had told Ramavtar, father of Mamta, that he should keep her daughter under control. When Mamta had been dropped by family members of Pooran Mal, then Ramavtar and Kajod had threatened them that they would teach them a lesson. The witness also admitted that the incident had occurred suddenly. Kajod was working at the temple which is near the place of incident.
Thus, in the present case from the evidence on record, it transpires that the occurrence had taken place suddenly at the Bus Stand. Temple where deceased Kajod and the complainant Ramesh Chandra were doing construction work is near the Bus Stand. It has been deposed by PW.28 Shimbhu Dayal in his cross- examination that Mukesh etc. were running Jeeps and used to take passengers on Shahpura route. On the date of incident also they had taken passengers on Shahpura route. Thus, it can be inferred that the accused party was present at the Bus Stand in connection with their Taxi business. It appears that on account of love affair between Pooran Mal and Mamta, there was some enmity/grievance between the parties. It also appears that the boy side was ready to perform marriage of Pooran Mal with Mamta. Hence, it appears that the dispute occurred between the (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (13 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] parties all of a sudden and there appears to be no pre-meditation between the parties to commit the offence.
Section 299 IPC reads as under:-
"299. Culpable homicide.--Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."
Section 300 IPC reads as under:-
"300. Murder.--Except in the cases 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. - x x x x x x x x Exception 2. - x x x x x x x x Exception 3. - x x x x x x x 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. Exception 5. - x x x x x x x x"
Thus, as per Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC, a culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without any pre- meditation and without the offender having taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
(14 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] In the present case, since the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden, then it cannot be said that the appellants had come to the spot by forming an unlawful assembly with a view to commit the offence of murder. Hence, each appellant would be responsible for his own act/participation in the crime.
Hence, all the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 148 IPC.
Now, the next question that requires consideration is with regard to involvement of the appellants in the crime and their guilt.
So far as appellants Babulal (armed with stick), Jeevan (armed with stick) and Pooran Mal (armed with iron rod) are concerned, they have inflicted blow with their respective weapon on the head of deceased Kajod. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P.26), deceased had suffered three injuries on his head and remaining three injuries on his person are bruises and one lacerated wound on his right thumb. So far as head injuries are concerned, they are specifically attributed to the appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal, whereas, other injuries which are not attributed to any person, could have been a result of fall on account of head injuries suffered by deceased Kajod. Since the occurrence had occurred all of a sudden and the appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal had inflicted one blow on the head of deceased Kajod, it appears that said appellants had no intention to commit the murder of Kajod, but were aware that their act was likely to cause death.
Hence, appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal are liable to be acquitted qua the charge framed against them under Section (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (15 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] 302 IPC and were guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
So far as appellant Pooran Mal is concerned, he is also attributed simple injury to injured Ramesh. Hence, appellant Pooran Mal is also guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC.
So far as appellant Durga Ram is concerned, he has been specifically attributed simple injuries to injured Maliram, Arjun, Lokesh and Bhairu Ram. The said appellant was armed with a stick. Hence, appellant Durga Ram is guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
Appellant Hari Ram is attributed specific injury to injured Maliram on his left hand and the said injury was declared grievous in nature. Appellant Hari Ram was armed with a stick at the time of incident. Hence, appellant Hari Ram is guilty of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
So far as other appellants, namely Sitaram s/o Jagannath, Ram Chandra, Sitaram s/o Prahlad, Rohitash, Hanuman, Memaram, Mukesh Kumar, Mohan Lal, Akash, Kaluram, Hemraj, are concerned, they are not attributed any specific overt act towards the deceased or the injured. All the said appellants are relatives of appellant Pooran Mal. The possibility that they all have been falsely involved in this case with a view to over implicate the accused in this case, cannot be ruled out. There was ill-will/ grievance between the complainant party and the accused party on account of love affair between Mamta and Pooran Mal. Hence, it is possible that the complainant party wanted to involve all the relatives of Pooran Mal to settle their ill-will/grievance.
Hence, appellants Ram Chandra, Sitaram s/o Prahlad, Rohitash, Hanuman, Memaram, Mukesh Kumar, Mohan Lal, (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (16 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] Akash, Kaluram and Hemraj are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
So far appellant Sitaram s/o Jagannath is concerned, he has died during pendency of appeal, hence, the appeal qua him stands abated and is disposed of accordingly.
Appellants Babulal, Jeevan, Pooran Mal, Durga Ram and Hari Ram are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 341/149 IPC.
Appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal are held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC and are convicted thereunder. Appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304 Part-I IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, appellants Babulal, Jeevan and Pooran Mal shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Conviction and sentence of appellant Pooran Mal under Section 323 IPC, as awarded by the trial court, is maintained. He is acquitted of charges framed against him under Sections 354 and 325/149 IPC.
So far appellant Babulal is concerned, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 354, 323/149, 325/149 IPC. So far appellant Jeevan is concerned, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 323/149, 325/149 IPC.
Appellant Hari Ram is held guilty of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and is convicted thereunder and his sentence is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment from two years imprisonment, as awarded by the trial court. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.1000/-, as imposed by the trial court, is (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM) (17 of 17) [CRLA-375/2016] maintained. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days instead of three months. Appellant Hari Ram is acquitted qua charge framed against him under Section 323/149 IPC.
So far appellant Durga Ram is concerned, his conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC, as awarded by the trial court, is maintained and he is acquitted qua charge framed against him under Section 325/149 IPC by the trial court.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.404/2016 stands disposed of qua appellants Babulal, Pooran Mal, Jeevan, Durga Ram and Hari Ram accordingly and it is allowed qua appellants Ram Chandra, Sitaram s/o Prahlad, Mukesh and Hemraj. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.375/2016 is disposed of as having abated qua appellant No.1 Sitaram s/o Jagannath and qua appellants Rohtash, Hanuman, Memaram @ Gopal, Mohan Lal, Prakash, Kaluram, the same is allowed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) J. (SABINA) J.
Govind/
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:35:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)