Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Man Singh vs State And Ors on 14 December, 2017
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
(1 of 7 )
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH
AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 767/2004
Man Singh S/o Shri Hansraj, B/c Gurjar, R/o Rajahera, Police
Station Nadoti, District Karauli.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
2. Ram Pratap S/o Ram Kishan
3. Hansraj S/o Ram Kishan
4. Thansingh S/o Ram Kishan
All B/c Gurjar, R/o Rajahera, Police Station Nadoti, District
Karauli.
----Respondents
Connected With
2. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 871/2004 Ram Pratap S/o Ram Kishan, aged about 45 years, B/c Gurjar, R/o Rajahera, Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli. (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent _________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. M.I. Khan _________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment 14/12/2017 Vide this order above mentioned revision petition as well as appeal would be disposed of as they have arisen out of judgment/order passed by the trial court dated 31.07.2004.
(2 of 7 ) Prosecution story in brief is that on 22.11.1996 at about 7.00 p.m., accused had attacked the complainant party while armed with sticks, gandasi etc. As a result, Ramkesh, Singari, Mansingh and Rameshwari suffered injuries. It was the case of the complainant that the accused had then thrown Rameshwari in the Well and as a result, she had died.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against Ram Pratap, Hansraj and Thansingh for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 325, 323, 447 I.P.C.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence stated that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence, during trial.
Prosecution moved an application for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.06.2004. Another application was moved by the prosecution for amending the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., after statements of material witnesses were recorded during trial. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.06.2004. Admittedly the said order was not challenged before the higher Court.
Trial Court vide impugned judgment, has ordered the conviction and sentence of accused Ram Pratap under Section (3 of 7 ) 325, 323 I.P.C. and has acquitted him qua charge framed against him under Section 306 I.P.C., whereas, accused Hansraj was acquitted from the charges framed against him and accused Thansingh was convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal by accused Ram Pratap and the revision petition by the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused and learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
PW1- Man Singh, while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 22.11.1996 at about 7 A.M., Ram Pratap, Amar Singh, Puran, Hansraj, Thansingh, Ramswaroop, Moolchand, Bharatraj, Deshraj, Bhag Singh, Vijay Singh, Rajendra, Maharaj Singh, Surgyan and Ram Raj along with ladies Dakhi, Janki, Ramki, Girraj ji, Kesula and 20 more ladies were demolishing the boundary of the fields. When the said witness along with his father Ram Hans, Mother-Singri and wife Rameshwari, reached the spot and questioned the accused as to why they were demolishing the boundary, they (accused) started inflicted injuries to them. Ram Pratap was armed with an axe whereas, Thansingh was armed with a gandasi and the remaining accused were armed with sticks. During the occurrence, Rameshwari became unconscious. He did not know who had inflicted injury on her person. Then he said that Thansingh had given a gandasi blow on her with riverse side on her hand. Rameshwari was thrown in the well (4 of 7 ) by Moolchand, Bharatraj, Ram Pratap and Amar Singh. He was given an axe blow from the riverse side on his persons by Ram Pratap. Thansingh had also given a gandasi blow from the riverse side on his person. Ram Pratap had given a stick blow on his back. Thereafter, he lost his consciousness and was removed to hospital for treatment.
PW2- Ram Hans, PW5- Singri, duly corroborated the statement of PW1.
So far as PW3-Raju Lal and PW7-Ram Gopal are concerned, they deposed that the occurrence had taken place but they did not know whether Rameshwari had fallen in the well or was recovered from the well.
PW8-Dr. Medhraj Meena, proved the medico legal examination reports of the injured Singri (Exhibit P8). Ramkesh (Ex. P9) and Man Singh (Ex. P10). He also proved the post mortem examination report of deceased Rameshwari Ex. P11.
A perusal of Ex. P-11, reveals that the deceased Rameshwari had died on account of drowning and a bruise was seen on her left hip. There was no injury on her hand which has been attributed to Thansingh by PW-1. As per Ex. P8 injured Singri has suffered two bruises on her right leg and back. The said injuries were declared simple in nature. Injured Ramhans had suffered four injuries and the same were declared simple in nature. Injured Man Singh had suffered three injuries and injury No.1, with regard to fracture of his left ankle was declared grievous in nature whereas, the (5 of 7 ) other two injuries/abrasions were declared simple in nature.
In the present case, the learned trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the accused qua charge framed against them under Section 306 I.P.C., has held that there was no evidence on record that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Rameshwari. The story put forth by the complainant party that Rameshwari had been thrown in the well by the accused was not proved during investigation and the challan was presented against the accused under Section 306 I.P.C. Application moved by the complainant/prosecution for framing of charge against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.06.2004. The said order has become final as the same was not challenged in a higher Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Trial Court had rightly ordered the acquittal of the accused qua charge framed against them under Section 306 I.P.C., as there was no evidence on record in this regard.
So far as accused Hansraj is concerned, no specific overt act had been attributed to him by the witnesses. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly ordered his acquittal.
So far as accused Rampratap is concerned, grievous injury on the person of Man Singh is attributed to him. In these circumstances, he has been rightly convicted qua offence punishable under Section 325, 323 I.P.C., as the (6 of 7 ) injured had also suffered simple injuries at his hands.
So far as accused Thansingh, is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court qua offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. after appreciating the evidence led on record. Trial Court held that accused Thansingh could not be attributed the common intention with his co-accused Ram Pratap who has been held guilty qua offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. From the evidence on record, the reasoning given by the trial Court while ordering the conviction and sentence of the Thansingh under Section 323 I.P.C., is liable to be upheld. So far as Thansingh accused is concerned, he has not challenged his conviction as ordered by the trial Court. Thansingh was granted benefit of probation.
Thus, in the present case, the impugned judgment of the trial Court, while ordering the conviction of accused Ram Pratap under Section 325, 323 I.P.C. and accused Thansingh under Section 323 I.P.C., is liable to be upheld.
Learned counsel for the accused Ram Pratap has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of accused Ram Pratap be reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as accused Ram Pratap, is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under Section 325 I.P.C.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the accused Ram Pratap has only undergone about seventeen days of actual sentence.
(7 of 7 ) Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case, it would not be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the accused Ram Pratap to the period already undergone by him under Section 325 I.P.C. but his sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced. Occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1996.
Accordingly, sentence qua imprisonment of accused Ram Pratap is reduced from three years simple imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C., to six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences under Section 325 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C. of accused Ram Pratap shall run concurrently. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the complainant is dismissed and appeal filed by accused Ram Pratap stands disposed of in the above terms.
(SABINA)J. Mohita/8-9