Ratan Lal vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302/34 and 342 IPC, by the judgment dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neem-ka-thana, District Sikar, Ratan Lal, the appellant, has challenged the same before this Court.

For offence under Section 302/34 IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and directed to further undergo three months'' of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 342 IPC, he has been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on 23.4.2005, Rameshwar Prasad Gurjar (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex. P.1) at the place of the occurrence to the police. The said written report, when translated into English reads as under:--

"To,

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Patan.

Subject: In relation to murder of Begaram S/o. Leelaram Kumhar, resident of Haripura.

In reference to the above it is humbly submitted that today on 23.3.2005, around 8.00 in the morning, a fight broke out between Begaram S/o. Leela Ram Kumhar, resident of Haripura and his nephew Ratan Lal Kumhar S/o. Late Shri Daulat Ram Kumhar, and his family members. Ratan Lal and his family members assaulted Begaram due to which Begaram has expired. His dead body is lying near the Neem tree situated in front of the house of Ratan Lal. There is no one Begaram''s house. Therefore, I am submitting the report for taking legal action."

On the basis of this written report (Ex. P.1) the police chalked out a formal FIR (Ex. P.15), namely, FIR No. 54/2005 for offence under Section 302 IPC and initiated its investigation. During the investigation, the police arrested the appellant Ratan Lal and Vikram. However, Vikram was a juvenile; his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. Eventually, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 342 and 302/34 IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neem-ka-Thana. The case was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana. By order dated 16th July, 2005, the learned trial judge framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 342 and 302/34 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, and submitted twenty nine documents.

After evidence of the prosecution was closed, appellant''s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. According the appellant, he did not assault Begaram. In fact, Begaram had a dispute with the members belonging to Gurjar community. For three days, Begaram had drunk liquor and was creating trouble for the members of the Gurjar community. Moreover, the village Haripura is dominated by Gurjar community, as the Zila Pramukh is a Gurjar, and the former MLA is Phool Chand Gurjar. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in order to protect the members of Gurjar community. However, the defence did not examine any witness, but did submit three documents.

After completion of the trial and going through the documentary and oral evidence, by the impugned judgment dated 28th March, 2007 the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Before this Court discusses the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would indeed, be fruitful to briefly notice the evidence produced by the prosecution.

According to Rameshwar S/o. Ramlal (PW.1), although he is the complainant in the case, he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. In fact, according to the prosecution, it is Rameshwar S/o. Ganpat Ram (PW.2) who is said to be an eye-witness of the case. Rameshwar (PW.2) in his examination-in-chief, claims that "his house is situated just near to the house of accused, Ratan Lal Kumawat. On the fateful day, around 8.00 A.M., a dispute had erupted between Ratan Lal and Begaram. Vikram and Ratan Lal tied Begaram to a Neem tree and Ratan Lal repeatedly assaulting Begaram with a lathi. Vikram had a lathi, but he did not assault Begaram". In his cross-examination, he claimed that "Begaram was tied and was assaulted with a lathi". He saw the occurrence when he came from his house. However, he had no idea as to why Begaram had come to the house of Ratan Lal and why the fight had broken out. He has denied the suggestion that Begaram was drunk at that time. But he admitted that on the previous occasion Begaram had certain disputes with the members belonging to the Gurjar community.

Tota Ram (PW.3) is also an eyewitness. According to him, Ratan Lal had hit Begaram at least five to ten times, with a lathi, but he could not tell the reason why the disputed had erupted.

Nathu Lal (PW.5) also claims to be an eyewitness. While corroborating the testimony of Rameshwar (PW.2), like Tota Ram (PW.3),he absolves Vikram of the alleged crime.

Jeetram (PW.7) also claims to be an eyewitness. However, according to him, his grand daughter called him and told him that someone belonging to Kumhar community had tress-passed into their house. When he rushed to his house, he saw that Ratan Lal and Vikram, his sister, his mother, and three to four other persons were assaulting Begaram with lathies. He further claims that he snatched the lathi from Ratan Lal and assaulted Ratan Lal on his hand. He further claims that Ratan Lal, his mother Sarbati, Vikram and his sister, all of them had tied Begaram to a Neem tree. All were assaulting Begaram. Further more, he states "that Begaram had injuries on his head, heel, knees, hands, buttocks and waist and he was bleeding from all these injuries". According to him, he informed Bodu Ram who called up the police. The police came to the place of occurrence. He then went on to prove the inquest report (Ex. P.14), the site plan (Ex. P.8) and other investigative documents.

While the eyewitnesses have given a consistent version of the occurrence while they claim that the appellant had repeatedly assaulted Begaram while they have also stated that Begaram had suffered a number of injuries, the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (PW.15) dilutes the case of the prosecution. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma was posted as Medical Officer in the Community Health Centre, Patan. He conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased Begaram. He has proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P.28). According to the doctor, Begaram had suffered the following five injuries:--

"1. Swelling 3 x 2 cm on Lt. Parietal region of skull;

Lacerated Wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on Lt. heel;

Bruise 2 x 2 cm on Lt. elbow;

Bruise 2 x 2 cm on Lt. knee joint;

Bruise 2 x 1/2 cm on Rt. thigh."

When the skull was opened, the doctor discovered laceration and contusion on the brain, and a haematoma. He also discovered a fracture of left parietal bone. The cause of death, in his opinion, was "hemorrhagic shock due to the head injury".

Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that that the eyewitnesses have exaggerated the entire incident as they have claimed that Begaram was assaulted repeatedly but their testimony is belied by the medical evidence. Therefore, these witnesses are unreliable. Secondly, even if those eyewitnesses were to be believed, considering the fact that Begaram has suffered a single injury on his head and has suffered other injuries on the non-vital part of his body, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 part I IPC.

On the other-hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in this country. Even if there is a bit of embellishment, even then the crux of the prosecution story still holds true. Therefore, the case would fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and examined the record.

Undoubtedly, there is a bit of exaggeration in the testimonies of Rameshwar (PW.2), and Jeet Ram (PW.7). While Rameshwar (PW.2) claims that Begaram was repeatedly assaulted by Ratan Lal, Jeetaram (PW.7) claims that Begaram was not only assaulted by Ratan Lal, but was also assaulted by his mother and sister. Totaram (PW.3) claims that Ratan Lal had hit Begaram at least five to ten times. However, according to the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P.28) Begaram had sustained only five injuries, out of which, three were mere bruises on non-vital parts. Therefore, obviously, the witnesses have embellished their testimony. However, the doctrine of ''falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'' is inapplicable.

But the doctrine of ''falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'', as it has been consistently held, does not apply to India particularly in criminal trials. It means that any witness may make a statement which may be incorrect to some extent, but that does not inevitably follow that other portion of the statement, which is correct has also to be disbelieved. To put it differently, the statements of witnesses may be tainted with falsehood, and very often there is fringe or embroidery to a story. The falsehood should be considered in weighing the evidence. But when there is reason to believe that the main part of deposition is true, the same should not be rejected simply because of want of veracity on some minor point (Ref. to Nisar Ali Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366 : (1957) CriLJ 550 : (1957) 1 SCR 657 , Ugar Ahir and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 , Keshoram Bora Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1978 SC 1096 : (1978) CriLJ 1089 : (1978) 2 SCC 407 : (1978) SCC(Cri) 219 : (1978) 2 SCR 788 : (1978) 10 UJ 208 , State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Hazara Singh and Another, AIR 1981 SC 451 : (1980) CriLJ 1501 : (1981) SCC(Cri) 537 and Gangadhar Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 SC 3663).

According to the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Prasad (PW.15), as mentioned above, Begaram had suffered only five injuries. It is only injury No. 1 which had proved to be fatal. Due to the said injury, there was a fracture of the left parietal bone of skull and there was a laceration and contusion of the brain. A Haematoma was present. The cause of death is "hemorrhagic shock due to the head injury".

Both Deep Chand (PW.4) and Nathu Lal (PW.5) do tell the court that Begaram was habitual drinker. Even according to his mother, Meva (PW.6) Begaram was hungry for last three to four days prior to his death. "When he used to drink, he did not eat and there was no one in his family to cook for him as she and wife of Begaram were staying away". Smt. Sumitra (PW.8), wife of the deceased Begaram, informs the court that "there was no animosity between Ratan Lal and Begaram". Even the other eyewitnesses namely Rameshwar (PW.1), the other Rameshwar (PW.2), Tota Ram (PW.3), Nathu Lal (PW.5), and Jeetaram (PW.7) admitted that they do not know the reason why the fight broke out between Begaram and Ratan Lal.

A critical analysis of this evidence indicates that Begaram had been drinking for the last three to four days prior to his death, and he was going hungry. Therefore, he has taken some cudgels with the appellant and his family members. The appellant had tied Begaram in order to control him, and hit him over the head. According to Nathu Lal (PW.5), although Vikram was present there, but he did not participate. Thus, the appellant had not pre-planned the murder of Begaram. He has not even used a lethal weapon except a lathi. He has caused other injuries on the non-vital parts of the body of the deceased. Since the incident had suddenly flared up, without premeditation, in a sudden quarrel, since the appellant was not cruel to the victim, therefore, the appellant''s act would not fall under Section 302 IPC, but at the worst, it would fall under Section 304 part-I IPC.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction of the appellant Ratan Lal is converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part-I IPC. Consequently, his sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the fine imposed by the trial court and default clause are hereby, confirmed.

Conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 342 IPC and the sentence thereof imposed by the trial court are maintained.

Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Ratan Lal is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and a surety bond in the like amount before the trial court. The bonds, so furnished shall be effected for a period of six-months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon''ble Apex Court.

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.