Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the trial, the trial Court first of all framed charge against Gangaram for offence under Section 147, 302, 325, 323 and 447 I.P.C. and for all other accused the charge was framed for offence under Section 147, 447, 323, 325/149 and 302/149. After framing charges, an opportunity was granted to the prosecution to lead evidence and prosecution produced as many as 25 witnesses to prove the prosecution case. After recording statement of 25 witnesses from the side of prosecution, the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants were recorded. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Gangaram (died) stated that he was in possession from last 50 years upon the land where occurrence took place and also having title over the land and refused to accept the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. Accused Narayan contended in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is cultivating the said land from last 25 years. Learned trial Court after recording the statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. granted an opportunity to the appellants to produce any evidence in their defense. In defense oral statement of DW-1 Dhula was recorded. Thereafter the matter was finally heard by the trial Court and finally delivered the judgment on 19.4.1986 whereby learned trial Court acquitted the accused appellant Gangaram for offence under Section 147, 302, 325 and 323 I.P.C. and accused appellants Narayan and Mangilal were also acquitted for offence under Section 147, 302/149, 325/149 and 323 I.P.C. and accused appellants Smt. Dhapu, Kamla and Mangi were acquitted for offence under Section 302/149, 325/149 and 323 I.P.C. but accused appellant Gangaram, Narayan and Mangilal were convicted for offence under Section 447, 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34 and accused appellant Smt. Dhapu, Kamla and Mangi were convicted for offence under Section 323/34 and 325/34. Thereafter, arguments were heard by the trial Court for imposing sentence and after hearing arguments on behalf of accused appellants, learned trial Court convicted all the accused appellant for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and sentenced them for one month RI and all the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Section 325/34 and passed sentence for two years RI along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default to further undergo one month SI. Similarly, accused-appellants Ganga Ram (died), Narayan and Mangilal were convicted for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and passed sentence for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default to further undergo one month SI and for offence under Section 323/34, it is observed by learned trial Court that no separate punishment is required because accused appellants have already been convicted for higher offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C., therefore, it is treated to be merged in the sentence awarded for committing offence under Section 325/34.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that upon plain reading of statement of PW-8 Udai Ram, PW-9 Smt. Ganga and PW-10 Smt. Nandu injured eye witnesses, it will reveal that there was no previous enmity between the party, more so, all the accused and complainant party are family members and there was dispute in the family with regard to agricultural land where occurrence took place. Therefore, as per testimony of these injured eye witnesses, it can be said that there was no intention to kill anybody. More so, as per oral statement of all the eye witnesses, the deceased Naru came on spot for rescue of injured eye witnesses Smt. Ganga and Smt. Nandu, therefore, this fact itself speaks that occurrence took place due to sudden provocation and in the free fight, the injuries were received by the deceased as well as by injured eye witnesses but there is no evidence to show intention to kill any person by the accused party. Therefore, learned trial Court has committed a gross error while convicting the accused appellants Ganga Ram who died during the pendency of the appeal, Narayan and Mangia for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C., so also, has committed an error for convicting all the accused appellants for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. The evidence adduced by the prosecution can be discredited for the purpose of holding liable the accused appellants Narayan and Mangia for offence under Section 302/34. Similarly, accused appellants Smt. Kamla and Smt. Mangi have been convicted erroneously for committing offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. According to learned counsel for the appellant the case does not travel beyond Section 324 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for all the accused appellants. More so, the finding of learned trial Court with regard to committing offence by Smt. Kamla and Smt. Mangi for committing offence under Section 325/34 is also erroneous because there is no allegation of any of the eye witnesses that both these accused caused any grievous injuries to any of the injured including deceased. Therefore, at the most they can be held responsible for offence under Section 323/34 so also for tress pass under Section 447 I.P.C. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of learned trial Court with regard to committing offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. by all the accused appellants is erroneous because there is no specific allegation against the accused appellant Dhapu who died during the pendency of the appeal and Kamla and Mangi that they have inflicted any grievous injury to the injured. Therefore, at the best, they can be held guilty for offence under Section 323/34 and for offence under Section 447 I.P.C.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that prosecution has adduced sufficient and cogent evidence on record to prove its case and learned trial Court has correctly assessed the credibility of the oral statement of all the witnesses including eye witnesses and has rightly gave finding that three accused appellants namely Ganga Ram who died during pendency of appeal so also Naraya and Mangia committed offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C., and under Section 325/34 I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment impugned does not require any interference because finding with regard to committing offence by the accused Narayan and Mangilal under Section 302/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. are based upon trustworthy evidence of prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor also invited our attention towards the fact that accused appellants Smt. Kamla and Smt. Mangi have rightly been convicted for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and there is no error in the judgment rendered by trail Court because learned trial Court has assessed the prosecution evidence with due application of mind and has rightly held accused appellant for committing offence under Section 325/34 and for other offences. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

With regard to conviction of accused appellants Smt. Mangi and Smt. Kamla, upon assessment of statement of all the witnesses including eye witnesses PW-8 Udai Ram, PW-9, Smt. Ganga and PW-10 Smt. Nandu, we are of the opinion that there is no allegation against these accused appellants that they have inflicted any grievous injury to any of the injured including deceased, therefore, upon assessment of their role in the incident, we are of the opinion that their conviction for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. is erroneous and learned trial Court has committed an error while holding guilty accused appellants Smt. Kamla and Smt. Mangi for offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C., therefore, their conviction is also hereby quashed and set aside and their conviction is altered from offence under Section 325/34 I.P.C. to offence under Section 323/34 I.P.C. while maintaining other part of the conviction for offence under Section 447 I.P.C.