Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The pleas of the accused-persons were recorded and they did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial whereupon the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. They have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. They examined five witnesses in their defence.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court held that in this case, no common intention or common object to commit the murder of Chhogaram was formed and, therefore, it has acquitted all the accused persons of the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC. It has further held that if any common intention or common object was there, it was to cause simple hurts to the victims but inspite of it, he did not convict any body by taking recourse to Section 34 or 149 IPC. It has also held that from the evidence of PW 3 Prahlad and PW 5 Jetaram, it is clear that accused Kishnaram has inflicted simple injuries and, therefore, he has been held guilty of the offences Under Section 323, IPC for causing simple injuries to these two injured persons. Accused Harlal, Jiya and Arjun are alleged to have caused simple injuries from the back side of Dhariyas to deceased Chhoga Ram and, therefore, they to have been held guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC. It has further held that accused Prahladram had inflicted a hockey blow on the head of Chhogaram and that injury has proved fatal and, therefore, the learned lower court has assigned to accused Prahladram the knowledge that he caused an injury which was likely to cause death because he has availed the head of the deceased for causing severe blow with such a heavy weapon like hockey and so, the accused Prahaladram has been held guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC. Nobody has been held guilty of the offence under Section 449 IPC because no intention to kill Chhogaram had ever developed amongst the accused-persons and thus, only 5 accused persons against whom, there is specific evidence of causing injuries have been held guilty of the offence under Section 452 IPC. The remaining four accused-persons against whom there is no specific evidence of causing injuries to any of the injured have been acquitted of all the offences alleged against them. Even the convicted accused persons have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/149, 449 and 148 and 147 IPC. They have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

8. Mr. B.C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that in this case the learned lower court has held that common object and common intention developed amongst the assembly of the accused-persons at the spur of the moment. The learned lower court has itself held that their common intention was to cause simple injuries to Chhogaram. He has submitted that this view of the learned lower court is not sustainable on the basis of the record. It may be true that they may not have developed any common intention to kill Chhogaram because the Dhariyas were used by the accussed-persons from its back side but there cannot be any doubt about the fact that the accused had developed a common intention at the spur of the moment to cause such injuries to Chhogaram, which they knew likely to cause his death. When the persons of the assembly were armed with deadly weapons like Dhariyas and hockey it cannot be assumed that the common object and common intention of the assembly was only to cause simple injuries. More over, the intention can also be ascertained from the parts of the body which have been availed by them and the nature of the injuries caused by them. It is true that the accused-persons who were armed with Dhariyas used their weapons from its back side but at the same time, it is true that they have availed the most vital organs of Chhogaram for landing all the blows i.e. all the three accused who were armed with Dhariyas has availed the head, neck and temporal region of the body of deceased Chhogaram whereas accused Prahaladram who was armed with a hockey, availed the head of decased Chhogaram. Thus, the learned lower court should have taken a view that the common object of the assembly was to cause such like injuries to the injured which were likely to cause his death. More over, when the members of the assembly were armed with such deadly weapons like Dhariyas. how the learned lower court has inferred that their only intention was to cause simple injuries. At least, their common intention could have been to cause grievous injuries to the injured and they have actually done so.

13. Be that as it may, the learned lower court inspire of holding that the accused persons entertained common object to cause simple injuries to Chhoga Ram, it has not convicted and sentenced any body of the offence under Sections 147 and 148, JPC. It has held accused Prahlad Ram guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC and it has further held accused Harlal, Jiya and Arjun son of Natha guilty of the offence under Section 323, IPC because they have caused simple injuries to Chhoga Ram from the blunt side of Dhariyas. The learned lower court has also held accused Kishnaram guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC because he has caused simple injuries by lathi to Prahaladram and Jetaram who tried to intervene to save Chhogaram.

19. PW 3 Prahaladram has stated that accused Kishanaram has inflicted one blow on his right knee and the other blow was inflicted by him on his left arm. Both these injuries have been corroborated by the testimony of PW 9 Dr. P. Dayal, who has proved the injury report Ex. P 22 PW9 Dr. P Dayal examined PW 3 Prahladram on 7-9-1977 at about 11 am. and found a lacerated wound of the size 2 c.m.xl.5 cm. and skin deep on the lateral aspect of right knee a bruise 6 c m, x 1.5 cm. on the postero lateral aspect of middle of left fore-arm. Likewise, PW 5 Jetaram has stated that accused Kishnaram gave a lathi blow on the fingers of his right hand and Dr. P. Dayal (PW 9) has found a bruise 2 5 cm x I cm. x 1 cm. on the distal phalynx of right middle finger of Jetaram. Thus, the learned lower court was perfectly justified in holding that the accused Kishnaram has also taken part in the occurrence and he has inflicted simple injuries by a lathi to both the injured person i.e. PW 3 Prahladram and PW 5 Jetaram.