Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajranga And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 25 September, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1267/2015
1. Bajranga S/o Sanwaliya, B/c Gurjar,
2. Samay Singh S/o Chiranji Lal, B/c Gurjar,
Both resident of Umari, Police Station, Sadar Gangapur City,
District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
(Presently confined in Jail at Gangapur City)
----Accused/Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani for the State.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 25/09/2019 Appellants have filed the appeal challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 04.12.2015.
Appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section 341/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM)
(2 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015]
Under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo Six months simple imprisonment.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report Exhibit-P-5 lodged by complainant-Hariom. On the basis of report Exhibit-P-5, formal FIR Exhibit-P-18 bearing No.148 dated 16.06.2012 was registered at Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur for offence punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR was that a land dispute was going on between the complainant party and Sanwaliya. On 15.06.2012, in order to resolve the land dispute, complainant alongwith his brother Mool Chand and Om Prakash were going towards the village at about 11.00 a.m. Sanwaliya had the knowledge about the said fact and when they were crossing the house of Sanwaliya, they were attacked by Bajranga, Lala, Sumer, Chiranji, Sanwaliya and the ladies from their family who had come armed with sticks and stones. As a result, Mool Chand suffered injuries and died in the hospital.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants.
Charges were framed against the appellants by the trial court under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 302 and 302/34 IPC.
Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015] prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent. They were not present at the spot and had been falsely involved in this case due to land dispute.
Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Sanwaliya. Hence, the occurrence could be said to have occurred all of a sudden and without any meeting of minds of the appellants. As per Exhibit-P-1 Medico-legal-examination report of the deceased, he had suffered only one injury on his head and there was no other visible injury on his body. The said injury is attributed to appellant-Bajranga. Hence, it can be said that appellant-Bajranga had the intention to inflict injury on the person of the deceased but had no intention to commit his murder as he had not repeated any injury to him. Appelalnt-Samay Singh had not inflicted any injury to the deceased. So far as appellant- Samay Singh is concerned, he is attributed simple injuries to injured Om Prakash.
Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. Present case relates to murder of Mool Chand and injuries suffered by Om Prakash. Thus, case rests on eyewitness account.
Complainant-Hariom while appearing in the witness box as PW-4 has deposed that on 15.06.2012, they were going to collect five persons for convening a Panchayat. The way for the village, led through the houses of Sanwaliya, Chiranji, Lala, Bajranga and Samay Singh. On the way, they were attacked by Samay Singh, Bajranga, Sanwaliya, Lala, Chiranji and their ladies with sticks and stones. Appellant-Bajranga gave a stick blow on the head of Mool Chand. Appellant-Samay Singh also gave him a stick blow. Injured-Om Prakash intervened to save Mool Chand and appellant- (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM)
(4 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015] Samay Singh gave a stick blow to Om Prakash. Mool Chand fell down and became unconcious. Accused continued inflicting injuries to his brother Mool Chand. Then, Mool Chand was removed to the hospital at Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, but he was referred to Jaipur as his condition was serious. Mool Chand died during treatment.
Injured-Om Prakash while appearing in the witness box as PW-5 has corroborated the statement of the complainant.
PW-8 Satish deposed that appellant-Bajranga had given a stick blow on the head of Mool Chand. Appellant-Samay Singh had given a stick blow on the chest of Mool Chand. Injured-Om Prakash had been inflicted injuries by appellant-Samay Singh with a Stick. During cross-examination, the said witness was confronted with the portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. (Exhibit-D-2), wherein, it was mentioned that he was at a distance of 70-80 feet and on hearing the noise of fight, he had reached the spot and had seen that his uncle Mool Chand was lying on the ground. Thus, it is evident that PW-8 had reached the spot when injury had already been inflicted to Mool Chand.
PW-10 Dinesh Kumar deposed that appellant-Bajaranga had inflicted injury on the head of Mool Chand with a Stick. Appellant- Samay Singh had inflicted injury on his neck and his father had fallen on the ground. Injured-Om Prakash had intervened to save his father and appellant-Samay Singh had inflicted injury to him with a stick. During cross-examination, the said witness was confronted with the portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. (Exhibit-D-3), wherein, it was mentioned that he was at a distance of 70-80 feet and on hearing the noise of (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM) (5 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015] fight, they had reached the spot and had seen that his father Mool Chand was lying on the ground. Thus, it is evident that PW-10 had reached the spot after injury had been inflicted to Mool Chand.
PW-11 Prabhu, PW-13 Prem Devi and PW-14 Bachchu Singh have not supported the prosecution case, during trial.
PW-15 Meethalal deposed in his cross-examination that he had not witnessed the incident.
PW-1 Doctor Shivdayal Sharma deposed that on 15.06.2012, he had medically examined injured Moodya. He proved the medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-1. A perusal of Exhibit- P-1 reveals that injured had suffered one lacerated wound on his parietal region and had complained of body ache. There was no other visible injury on his person. He further deposed that on 18.06.2012, he had medico-legally examined injured-Om Prakash and proved the report Exhibit-P-2. A perusal of Exhibit-P-2 reveals that injured-Om Prakash had suffered one abrasion on his left index finger and a bruise on his left axillary fold.
PW-16 Doctor N.L. Disaniya deposed that on 16.06.2012, he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mool Chand. He proved the post-mortem examination report of deceased Mool Chand Exhibit-P-17. A perusal of Exhibit- P-17 reveals that the deceased had suffered two bruises on the front side of his chest and one lacerated wound on his head. Cause of death of the deceased was antemortem head injury.
Thus, from the ocular as well as medical evidence, it transpires that the deceased had died on account of head injury and the said injury is attributed to appellant-Bajranga. As per the medico-legal-examination report of the deceased Exhibit-P-1, there was only one injury on the person of the deceased and there (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM) (6 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015] was no other visible injury. Hence, it can be said that deceased was inflicted injury on his head by appellant-Bajranga. Although, as per Exhibit-P-1, there was only one visible injury on the head of deceased Mool Chand, however, as per Exhibit-P-17 postmortem examination report, there were three injuries on the person of the deceased, i.e., one injury on the head and two bruises on his chest. The bruises on the chest of the deceased have not been specifically attributed to any of the appellants by PW-4 and PW-5. So far as PW-8 is concerned, he had reached the spot after injured had suffered the injury.
So far as injured-Om Prakash is concerned, he is attributed simple injury by appellant-Samay Singh.
Occurrence in the present case had taken place in front of the house of appellant- Bajranga. Hence, it can be inferred that some altercation took place between the deceased and the appellants while he was crossing the house. Appellants had no meeting of minds to commit the offence. Occurrence, thus, took place all of a sudden and both the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be said to be responsible for their own acts. Appellant- Bajranga had inflicted one injury on the head of the deceased and had not repeated the blow. This leads to the inference that appellant-Bajaranga had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased, but the injury inflicted to the deceased by him was of such a nature which was likely to cause death. Hence, appellant-Bajaranga can be said to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.
So far as appellant- Samay Singh in concerned, he was guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC . (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM)
(7 of 7) [CRLA-1267/2015] Accordingly, appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC.
Conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 341 IPC is maintained.
So far as appellant-Bajranga is concerned, he is held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and is convicted thereunder, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
So far as appellant-Samay Singh is concerned, his conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court under Section 323 IPC is maintained.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Sanjay Kumawat-35
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:08:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)