AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused
appellants Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment
dated 23.07.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No. 2, Udaipur in sessions Case No. 35/1991 by which the
learned Judge convicted the accused-appellants for offences under
Sections 304-II, 147 and 323 / 149 IPC and passed the following
sentence :-
Section 304-II IPC-- Five years'' rigorous imprisonment
Section 147 IPC-- Six months'' rigorous imprisonment
Section 323 / 149 IPC-- One month rigorous imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the case are that on 27.06.1991 Panna
Lal (PW/6) filed a report at the police station Gogunda alleging that yesterday at about 10 O''clock in the night, he alongwith his
brother Lalu Ram went to their field for giving water then all of
sudden Shanker lal, Veni Ram, Radheshyam, Jagannath, Smt.
Tamubai w/o Jagannath, Smt. Dhapu w/o Shanker lal, Sajani
w/o Veni Ram all came there and starting to break our "Dhura".
They all caught hold Lalu Ram and starting beating him.
Jagannath inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Lalu Ram
consequent to which he became unconscious and they also
caused injuries on the hand and legs by stones. On his shouting,
Bhanwar and Kalu Kumhar came there and interceded.
Thereafter, they took Lalu Ram out from "dhura" and in the
morning, they took Lalu Ram to Gogunda in the Jeep.
On the said report, the Police registered the FIR No. 65/1991
for offence under Sections 147, 149, 307 IPC and started the
investigation. During investigation, Lalu Ram expired on 5 th July
1991 and then police added offence under Section 302 IPC. After
usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the
accused-appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302,
323, 147 / 149 IPC before the Court of Munsif and Judicial
Magistrate Gogunda. Later on the case was transferred in the
Court of District and Sessions Judge Udaipur, again the case was
transferred in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2,
Udaipur.
The learned trial court after hearing the arguments and
considering the material on record, framed charges against
accused-appellants for offences under Sections 302, 147, 323 / 149
IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven
witnesses in all and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter the
statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, Lalu Ram and G.L. Daad were examined as
DW-1 & DW-2.
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide judgment dated 23.07.1992
acquitted all the accused-appellants for offence under Section
302 IPC but convicted the present accused-appellants for
offences under Sections 304 Part-II, 147, 323/149 IPC and
passed the sentence as mentioned earlier.
The co-accused Smt. Tamu Bai was given the benefit of
probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
Remaining four accused appellants preferred an appeal before this
Court. The accused-appellant Jagannath expired while he was
lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur and his appeal was abated. During
the pendency of the appeal one more accused appellant Shanker
Lal also died and his appeal was also abated. Now only two
accused-appellants remain for consideration in this appeal namely
Radheshyam and Veni Ram.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that
the occurrence took place on 26.06.1991 and Lalu Ram expired on
5th July, 1991 and according to the statement of the complainant
Panna Lal (PW/6), in the whole night of incident, he remained with
the deceased Lalu Ram in an injured condition and on the next
day, the deceased Lalu Ram was taken to the hospital. Hence, due
to the negligence on the part of the complainant, the deceased
expired.
It is further argued that there is no motive in this occurrence
and the whole family was involved by the complainant. In the
alternative, learned counsel argued that the occurrence has taken
place as back as in the year 1991 and both the appellants were
arrested on 3rd July, 1991 and their bail was granted on
23.07.1992 and they remained in custody for more than one year
and at present accused-appellant Radheshyam is about 50 years
old and at the time of occurrence he was merely 23 years old.
Likewise accused-appellant Veniram is 48 years of the age and at
the time of the occurrence he was only 21 years of the age. In
these circumstances, the accused-appellant may be enlarged on
undergone.
Per contra, the learned public prosecutor has supported the
impugned judgment and argued that there are eye-witnesses in
this case and minor contradictions are on the record but their
evidence is well proved so the conviction of the accused-appellants
is well proved and therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellants
deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well
as learned public prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment
passed by the learned trial court and gone through the record of
the case.
PW/1 Dr. G.L Dar examined the injured Panna Lal and found
three injuries. All the injuries were simple in nature by a blunt
weapon. He also examined Lalu Ram and found total six injuries in
all by blunt weapon. He further opined that injury Nos. 4, 5, 6 are
simple in nature and he found fracture of parietal bone on the left
side of head and fracture of metacarpal bone in the right hand.
Lalu Ram expired on 05.07.1991.
The injuries mentioned in postmortem report (Ex.P/4) of
deceased Lalu Ram are follows as :-
Abrasion "3x1" on top of scalp 2. Abrasion within hematoma 2 ? x 1 ? at mid- parietal region. 3. Abrasion "3X2" cm with smelling hand with fracturing 4th and 5th metacarpal bone. 4. Abrasion back of chest" 2x1" cm. 5. Abrasion right side occipital right on 6x3 cm 6. Abrasion left wrist "2x1" cm on dissection of scalp/skull
The cause of death of Lalu Ram is due to head injury.
PW/2 is Mod JI who was a "Motbir". PW/3 is Havalia, who
was also a "Motbir". PW/4 is Lalu Ram, who was also a "Motbir".
PW/5 is Kalu and he deposed in his statement that after hearing
the noise, he reached on the spot and saw that the deceased
Lalu Ram and Jagannath were quarreling with each other and
other accused persons were present there and they were using
stones. He specifically deposed that Jagannath and other
accused were beating the deceased by stones. Omnibus
allegations have been mentioned by this witness. In his cross-
examination, he mentioned that when he reached on the spot, at
that time Lalu Ram was laying in an unconscious condition and
they all went back and nobody stopped there to lookafter Lalu
Ram. He further stated that he does not know about the injuries
caused by the accused-persons.
PW/6 is Panna Lal, who is complainant in this case. He
omnibusly mentioned that all the accused were giving beating to
the deceased Lalu Ram and he further mentioned that the
accused gave beating to him also and he sat on the spot with
the deceased in an injured condition in the whole night and on
the next morning they took Lalu Ram to the hospital in a Jeep.
He also does not state anything about any motive of the
accused-appellants with their family.
According to his statement, it has come on record that
there is no motive in the incident. He alongwith deceased sat on
the spot, the whole night and only on the next morning, they
admitted Lalu Ram in an injured condition.
PW/7 Rodi Lal was an eye-witness. He went on the spot in
the night and he only mentioned that he saw the deceased Lalu
Ram in an unconscious condition. He further mentioned that in
the morning the villagers informed him that Lalu Ram was laying
in the field. He went there and took Lalu Ram to the hospital.
PW/8 Bhanwar Lal was declared hostile. He was an eye-
witness of the incident but he has not mentioned anything about
the incident.
PW/9 Khemraj was a motbir. Pw/10 Bharat Singh was the
concerned SHO.
PW/11 Dr. Achalaram Beniwal examined the accused
Shankerlal who was injured in this case. He also examined
accused Jagannath, Veniram and Radheyshyam. They all
received injuries in the incident. These are the total witnesses of
prosecution side.
The main eye-witness in this case is Panna Lal (PW/6). In
his statement, he mentioned that he saw the incident but he
mentioned that he sat alongwith the deceased in whole of the
night and in the mid-night Rodi Lal his brother also came there
and he also sat in whole of the night but Rodi Lal (PW/7)
disputed this fact and he mentioned that the villagers informed
him about the incident and upon information he alongwith
Sanwala went there and at that time nobody was present at the
place of occurance.
No cross-examination was done by the defence counsel. So
this witness mentioned that Panna Lal was not at all present in
the night when the occurrence took place. This is not a dispute
that deceased expired after about 9 days of the incident and
only one injury was found on the head and other injuries were
on the non-vital part of the body. The complainant party never
gave any first aid to the deceased Lalu Ram during the whole
night. This shows that there was negligence on the part of the
complainant party and whether they had seen the occurrence in
the night or not. But in this case accused-appellants have also
received injuries. Meaning thereby, some quarrel might have
taken place between complainant party and the accused-
appellants. No motive has come on record.
In view of the over all facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that the courts below have appreciated
the evidence which came before them in proper and correct
perspective and there is no reason to interfere with the said
findings of Courts below and set aside the conviction recorded by
the learned Courts below. The conviction of the accused-
petitioner recorded by the trial court is confirmed and upheld.
However, I have considered the alternative prayer made by
the learned counsel for the accused-appellants for reducing the
sentence awarded to the accused-appellants. Admittedly the
incident in question took place in the year 1991 and this case
has come up for hearing in the year 2017 after 26 years. Both
the accused-appellants remained in judicial custody for more
than one year. Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in
the case of Misri Vs. State of Raj., reported in 2013 (4) Cr.L.R.
(Raj.) 1755 and the judgment in the case of Gamna Vs. State of
Raj., reported in 2014 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 631, while maintaining
the conviction of accused appellants for the offence under
Sections 304 Part-II and under Sections 147 & 323 / 149 IPC, I
deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the accused-
appellants to already undergone.
Consequently, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed
and while modifying the judgment dated 23.07.1992 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Sessions
Case No.35/1991, the sentence awarded to the accused-
appellants for offence under Sections 304-II IPC is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by them. The accused-
appellants have already served the sentence awarded for offence
under Sections 147 & 323 / 149 IPC. Since fine has not been imposed by the trial Court, therefore, it will be appropriate to
impose fine so that the legal heirs of the deceased may be
adequately compensated. Hence a fine of Rs. 10,000 is imposed
upon each of the accused-appellant. The amount of fine shall be
deposited by the accused-appellants in the trial court within a
period of 90 days from the date of this judgment. On depositing
the fine amount by the accused-appellants, the same shall be
disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased. The record of the
trial court shall be sent forthwith. The accused-appellants are on
bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.