Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramgopal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 25 July, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
nHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 825/2015
1. Ramgopal S/o Shri Ramchandra
2. Shankarlal S/o Shri Ramchandra
3. Parmeshwar S/o Shri Ramchandra
4. Ram Singh S/o Shri Ramgopal
5. Smt. Mathura W/o Shri Ramgopal
6. Smt. Geeta W/o Shri Shankar
All by caste Jat, R/o Lambakhurd Police Station Lambaharisingh,
District Tonk.
At present in District Jail, Tonk
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar Senior Advocate with Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Advocate with Mr. Bharat Yadav Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani for the State For Complainant : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina Advocate HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 25/07/2019 Appellants have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 31.08.2015 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 450, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
FIR No.82 dated 24.07.2012 was registered at Police Station Lamba Hari Singh, District Tonk under Sections 147, 148, 149, (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (2 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] 323, 302 and 452 IPC on the basis of the report lodged by complainant- Parmeshwar.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.07.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., complainant-Parmeshwar along with Bhanwar Lal and Kishan Lal had returned home from their fields and they were sitting and talking to their family members. In the meantime, one Safari vehicle and one Mahindra tractor came there. Ramgopal, Parmeshwar, Shankar, Ramsingh, Mathura, Lada, Geeta, Dhanni, Bhanwar, Mukesh, Suresh, Narayan and Rameshwar along with 5-7 other persons came there and while abusing, they entered their house. All the said persons were armed with sticks, farsi and axe and they attacked them. They inflicted injuries to Jagdish. Ramgopal and Parmeshwar gave blows on the head of Jagdish with a sharp edged weapon. They also inflicted injuries to the complainant as well as other persons. Jagdish, however, died at the spot.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and their co-accused Bhanwar Lal, Suresh and Ramdhan.
Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 148, 302/149, 323, 323/149 and 450 IPC. Charge under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was also framed against accused Ramgopal, Shankar, Mathura and Geeta.
Accused did not plead guilty of the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined forty six witnesses during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (3 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 31.08.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 450, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Bhanwar Lal, Suresh and Ramdhan were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Accused Ramgoal, Shankar, Mathura and Geeta were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 4/25 the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was a land dispute between the parties. In-fact, as per the Revenue record Exhibit-P-72, appellants were in possession of half share out of the land-in-question. Appellants had purchased the half share belonging to Shri Kishan out of the land. Occurrence had taken place in the public passage. Houses of the appellants as well as the complainant party are in the same street. Appellants have been falsely involved in this case due to land dispute between the parties.
Learned State counsel who is assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeal.
Present case relates to murder of Jagdish and injuries suffered by injured Nausar Devi, Devkaran, Bhanwar Lal, Kishan Lal, Sushila, Satyanarayan and Pushpa in the incident, which had occurred on 24.07.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. Complainant- Parmeshwar while appearing in the witness box as PW-31 has deposed that on 24.07.2012, he along with his brother Bhanwar Lal and Kishan Lal had gone to sow a sesame crop in the land measuring six bighas, which they had purchased (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (4 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] from Bheru. Sale deed had been executed with regard to the said land in favour of his mother. However, Ramgopal did not allow them to sow sesame crop, therefore, they had returned home. When they were taking tea at home, at about 1.30 p.m., one Safari vehicle and one Mahindra tractor came to the spot. 10-15 persons came armed with sticks, farsi and axe. Ramgopal was armed with a farsi. Mathura and Geeta were armed with axe. Parmeswar was armed with a stick. Shankar was armed with an axe. Ramsingh was armed with an iron pipe. Suresh, Ramdhan and Rameshwar were armed with sticks. All the said persons on reaching the spot attacked them. Parmeshwar gave a stick blow on the head of Jagdish. Ramgopal gave a farsi blow on the head of the Jagidsh. Pushpa had given a stick blow on his head. The other persons Nausar Devi, Devkaran, Bhanwar Lal, Kishan Lal, Sushila and Satyanarayan also suffered injuries on thier head. Accused had inflicted injuries to them after entering their house.
Injured-Kishan Lal while appearing in the witness box as PW-7 corroborated the statement of PW-31 and further deposed that Parmeshwar had given a stick blow on his head, whereas, Bhanwar Lal had given a stick blow on his back.
Injured-Sushila while appearing in the witness box as PW-8 corroborated the statement of PW-31. She further deposed that Shankar had given an axe blow on her head.
Injured-Pushpa while appearing in the witness box as PW-9 corroborated the statement of PW-31 and further deposed that Suresh had given a leg blow on her back. Appellants-Mathura and Geeta had given her stick blows.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM)
(5 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] Injured PW-14 Nausar Devi has corroborated the statement of PW-31 and has stated that Mathura had given a stick blow on her head and Ramsingh had given an iron pipe below on her head.
Injured-Devkaran while appearing in the witness box as PW-17 corroborated the statement of PW-31 and further deposed that Shankar had given an axe blow on his back. Ramsingh had given an iron pipe blow on his back.
Injured-Satyanarayan while appearing in the witness box as PW-19 corroborated the statement of PW-31 and further deposed that Suresh had given a stick blow on his right hand.
Injured- Bhanwar Lal while appearing in the witness box as PW-20 deposed that Ramsingh had given an iron pipe blow on his head and Shankar had given an axe blow on his head.
PW-16 Dr. Arjun Das deposed that on 24.07.2012, he had medically examined injured Pushpa and found one injury on her person. She had complained of pain in head, but no external injury was seen. He proved her medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-21. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Nausar Devi and found three simple injuries on her person. He proved her medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-22. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Devkaran and found two simple injuries on his person. He proved his medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-23. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Parmeshwar and found six simple injuries on his person. He proved his medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-29. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Kishan and found two simple injuries on his person. He proved his medico-legal-examination report (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (6 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] Exhibit-P-34. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Sushila and found four simple injuries on her person. He proved her medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-39. He further deposed that on the same day, he medically examined injured Bhanwar Lal and found six simple injuries on his person. He proved his medico-legal-examination report Exhibit-P-44. He further deposed that on the same day, he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jagdish and proved the report in this regard Exhibit-P-57. He deposed that there were two injuries, i.e., one on the head and one above the left eye of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he deposed that injuries on the head of Jagdish were as a result of blunt weapon.
The remaining witnesses have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by them. Some of the witnesses who are residing in the neighbourhood have also been examined, who have deposed with regard to the location of the houses of the complainant party as well as the accused.
Eye-witnesses-Ramkishan while appearing in the witness box as PW-13, Ghasi while appearing in the witness box as PW-15, Ramkishan while appearing in the witness box as PW-23 and Prahalad while appearing in the witness box as PW-25 have corroborated the statements of the injured witnesses with regard to the incident and involvement of the accused.
Exhibit-P-3 is the site plan prepared during investigation. A perusal of the same reveals that houses of the complainant party as well as the accused fall in the same street. The street is 20 feet wide. A perusal of the site plan also reveals that blood stains and broken pieces of glass bangles were found on the street. (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM)
(7 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] PW-24 Shri Behru has deposed that he had sold his land to complainant Parmeshwar about two years back. Sale deed was executed in this regard. Complainant-Parmeshwar had sown sesame crop in the land. The land belonging to his brother Shri Kishan fell on the eastern side of the land sold by him to the complainant. Shri Kishan had sold his land to accused Parmeshwar about six years back.
PW-35 Abhay Singh deposed that on 31.07.2012, he was posted as Patwari at Lamba Hari Singh, District Tonk. He proved the Jamabandi Exhibit-P-72. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Jamabandi entry had been made with regard to mutation sanctioned in favour of accused Parmeshwar with regard to half share. In the said Jamabandi, there was no entry with regard to the land sold by Bheru.
Thus, the question that requires consideration is as to whether appellants had come to the spot in conspiracy with each other with a view to commit the offence of murder.
In the present case, there was a land dispute between the parties. Accused had purchased half share out of the land-in- question belonging to Shri Kishan, whereas, it is the case of the complainant party that they had purchased half share out of the land belonging to Behru (brother of Shri Kishan).
From the site plan Exhibit-P-3, it is evident that the houses of the accused as well as the complainant party fall in the same street. Blood was found in the street and broken pieces of glass bangles were also found in the street. Hence, it appears that the incident had occurred in the street.
Houses of the parties fall within the same street and are facing each other. Hence, the presence of the accused in the street (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (8 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] is natural. There was no occassion for the accused to come to the spot as projected by the complainant party. It appears that on the day of incident, a sudden fight took place between the parties in relation to their land dispute.
Section 299 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:-
"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.
Explanation 1.--A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.--Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Explanation 3.--The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:-
"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--(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM)
(9 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] (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.
Exceptions :-
1. ...........x.............x...........
2............x.............x............
3............x.............x...........
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.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault."
5.............x.............x........... Thus, as per the above provisions, culpable homicide is not murder when it is committed in a sudden fight and without any premeditation.
In the present case, after going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that it is a case of sudden fight. Thus, all the accused would be individually responsible for their acts in the crime-in-question.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM)
(10 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015]
Jagdish had suffered two injuries and the same are
attributed to appellant-Parmeshwar and Ramgopal. Both the said accused are attributed single blow on the person of Jagdish. Jagdish had died on the spot. Since, appellants Ramgopal and Prameshwar had inflicted blows on the head of Jagdish, although, they had no intention to commit his murder, but they had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by them, could result in death of Jagdish.
So far as accused Parmeshwar and Ramgopal are concerned, they were guilty of offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
Appellants-Shanker Lal, Parmeshwar, Ramsingh, Mathura and Geeta are attributed simple injuries to injured with blunt weapons as is evident from medical evidence. Hence, they are guilty of offence punishable under section 323 IPC with regard to the injuries inflicted by them to the injured Nausar Devi, Devkaran, Bhanwar Lal, Kishan, Sushila, Satyanarayan and Pushpa.
Accordingly, it is held that appellants Parmeshwar, Ramgopal are guilty of offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC. Appellants Parmeshwar, Shanker, Ramsingh, Mathura and Geeta are guilty of offence punishable under section 323 IPC.
Accordingly, appellant Ramgopal is convicted qua offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellant-Ramgopal shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant-Parmeshwar is convicted qua offence punishable under section 304 Part-II IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM) (11 of 11) [CRLA-825/2015] payment of fine, appellant Parmeshwar shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant-Parmeshwar is also convicted qua offence punishable under section 323 IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
So far as appellant-Shanker Lal, Ram Singh, Mathura and Geeta are concerned, they are convicted qua offence punishable under section 323 IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under sections 147, 148, 450 and 302 IPC.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Sanjay Kumawat-28
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 08:59:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)