Rupa Ram and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 6.6.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 46/1993 by which he convicted the accused appellants Rupa Ram and Bhuria for offence u/s 325 I.P.C. and convicted accused appellant Prabhura for offence u/s 323 I.P.C, but instead of sentencing them the learned Additional Sessions Judge released them on probation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further directed that the accused appellant Rupa Ram would pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to injured P.W. 3 Poma Ram and accused appellant Bhuria would pay Rs. 3000/- to injured Mana Ram P.W. 11 and accused appellant Prabhura would pay Rs. 500/- to Poma Ram P.W. 3, Rs. 500/- to Mana Ram P.W. 11 and Rs. 500/- to Goma Ram P.W. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the same judgment acquitted rest of the accused, namely, Mst. Hanja, Mst. Singari, Mst. Nenu, Mst. Kalu, Babura, Fusaram and Vaga Ram from all the charges framed against them.

It arises in the following circumstances:

(i) On 24.8.1993 at about 8.45 p.m., P.W. 11 Mana Ram gave statement Ex.P/30 to P.W. 23 Rewat Singh orally stating that at about 8 a.m. in the morning, his son Sama Ram P.W. 8 and accused appellant Rupa Ram quarreled near the bus-stand. Thereafter at about 7 p.m. when P.W. 11 Mana Ram along with his brother P.W. 3 Poma Ram and his wife Dakhu P.W. 15 were sitting in their house accused Rupa Ram came and started beating his son Sama Ram, P.W. 8 and upon this, he, P.W. 3 Poma Ram, and P.W. 15 Dakhu, P.W. 9 Goma Ram and P.W. 25 Mana Ram intervened in the matter, then accused appellant Rupa Ram, Prabhura and Bhuria and other accused persons assembled there having lathis in their hands and started beating, as a result of which P.W. 11 Mana Ram received a fracture on his right hand at the hands of accused appellant Bhura and P.W. 3 Poma Ram was beaten by accused appellant Rupa Ram on his head with lathi and P.W. 8 Sama Ram, P.W. 25 Mana Ram and P.W. 15 Smt. Dakhu also received injuries.

(ii) On this report, the police chalked out FIR Ex.P/31 and started investigation.

(iii) During investigation, the injured persons were examined by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit and they received the following injuries:

P.W. 11 Mana Ram

His injury report is Ex.P/6 and same has been proved by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit. P.W. 11 Mana Ram received two injuries. He also received a fracture in right humerous bone and this injury No 1 was found to be grievous and X-ray report Ex.P/1 has been proved by P.W. 1 Dr. G.N. Purohit.

P.W. 3 Poma Ram

Injury report of P.W. 3 Poma Ram is Ex.P/7 and same has been proved by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit and he received three injuries. The injury No. 1 on the head was found to be grievous one and his X-ray report is Ex. P/8 and same has been proved by P.W. 26 Dr. S.P. Sharma.

P.W. 25 Mana Ram S/o Manaji

The injury report of P.W. 25 Mana Ram is Ex.P/8 and the same has been proved by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit as per which he received one simple injury by blunt object.

P.W. 8 Sama Ram

The injury report of P.W. 8 Sama Ram is Ex.P/9 and the same has been proved by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit, as per which he received one simple injury.

P.W. 9 Goma Ram

The injury report of P.W. 9 Goma Ram is Ex.P/10 which has been proved by P.W./5 Dr. S.P. Purohit as per which he received 2 simple injuries.

P.W. 15 Smt. Dakhu

The Injury report of P.W. 15 Smt. Dakhu is Ex.P/11 which has been proved by P.W. 5 Dr. S.P. Purohit and as per which he received one simple injury.

(iv) After usual investigation, a challan was submitted against the accused appellants and other accused persons for offence Under Sections 148, 307, 325 and 323 read with Sections 1491.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate from where the case of transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali where charges where framed against the accused appellants and other accused on 18.11.1993 for offences Under Sections 148, 307, 325, 323 and 149 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

During trial, 28 witnesses have been produced by the prosecution and thereafter statements of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded and no evidence was led in defence by the accused persons.

Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that some of the accused appellants and other accused also received injuries. The accused Haria received one simple injury and his injury report is Ex.D/1. Accused appellant Bhuria received one simple injury and his injury report is Ex.D/2. Accused appellant Rupa Ram received four simple injuries and his injury report is Ex.D/3. Accused appellant Prabhura received two simple injuries and his injury report is Ex.D/4. The accused Smt. Nenu received one simple injury and her injury report is Ex.D/5. Accused Smt. Kalu received three simple injuries and her injury report is Ex. D/6.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial came to the following conclusions:

(i) That it was a case of free fight and, therefore, no question of invoking Section 149 I.P.C. arises.

(ii) That no case for offence u/s 307 I.P.C. is made out for the grievous injuries of P.W. 11 Mana Ram and P.W. 3 Poma Ram and the case u/s 325 I.P.C. was found to be proved.

(iii) That grievous injury on the person of P.W. 3 Poma Ram was caused by accused appellant Rupa Ram on the head and the grievous injury on the right hand of P.W. 11 Mana Ram was caused by accused appellant Bhuria, thus, they committed offence u/s 325 I.P.C. and accused appellant Prabhura caused simple injury and thus, he committed offence u/s 323 I.P.C.

(iv) That he convicted accused appellants Rupa Ram and Bhuria for offence u/s 325 I.P.C. and accused appellant Prabhura for offence u/s 323 I.P.C. and released them on probation u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and further directed to pay compensation to the injured persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted rest of the accused.

Aggrieved from the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

In this appeal, two submissions have been made on behalf of the accused appellants:

(i) Since in this case the accused appellants and some other accused have sustained injuries and this fact has not been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and thus, their conviction is bad in law and it should be set aside.

(ii) That awarding of compensation to the injured is in excess as the accused appellants have themselves received injuries.

On the contrary, the learned P.P. has opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and submits that the judgment and orders passed by the learned trial Judge do not call for interference.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record and impugned judgment.

So far as first argument is concerned, it carries no weight specially looking to the fact that all the injuries sustained by the accused appellants and others are simple and very trivial in nature and no doubt that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not specifically mentioned this aspect, but he accepted the case of free fight which clearly goes to show that this aspect was in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge i.e. why he did not convict the accused appellants with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.

Any non-explanation of injuries on the accused by prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non- explanation may assume greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives version which completes in probability with that of prosecution, but where evidence is clear, cogent and credit worthy and where the Court can distinguish truth from falsehood, the mere fact that injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself by a sole basis to reject such evidence and consequently the whole case.

In the present case, since injuries found on the persons of accused appellants and other accused are simple in nature and apart from this it is a case of free fight in which each accused would be liable for the injuries caused by himself and thus, the present injuries sustained by the accused appellants would not affect the prosecution case tq the extent to be held to be proved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, the first argument is liable to be rejected and the same is rejected.

On the second argument, it may be stated here that P.W. 11 Mana Ram received a fracture on his right hand and accused Bhuria was asked to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to P.W. 11 Mana Ram for that injury. Similarly, P.W. 3 Poma Ram received a fracture in head at the hands of accused appellant Rupa Ram and he was asked to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to P.W. 3 Poma Ram, while accused appellant Prabhura was asked to pay Rs. 500/- each to each injured i.e. P.W. 3 Poma Ram, P.W. 11 Mana Ram and P.W. 9 Goma Ram.

In my considered opinion, looking to the fact that P.W. 3 Poma Ram received a fracture on his head and as per medical evidence, he has admitted in the hospital and his condition was serious one also, therefore, if he has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- to P.W. 3 Poma Ram, it cannot be said to be unreasonable and excessive.

Similarly amount of compensation of Rs. 3000/- directed to be paid by accused, appellant Bhuria to P.W. 11 Mana Ram cannot be said to be excessive, but the compensation to be paid by accused appellant Prabhura to each injured is not proper as P.W. 3 Poma Ram and P.W. 11 Mana Ram have already been awarded compensation by other two accused appellants.

It may be stated here that so far as grievous injury on the head of P.W. 3 Poma Ram is concerned, that was serious one and for that injury releasing the accused appellant Rupa Ram on probation shows that he was already treated leniently in awarding sentence. Therefore, this Court would not like to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which he awarded some compensation to the injured persons.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a case reported in 1998 SCC 712 Shiv Koran and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan. In my opinion, the facts of that case are different from the present case in the sense that that was the case of murder, while the present case is a case of grievous injury received by the injured and the injuries received by the accused appellants are simple. Further more, it was a case of free fight and the injuries sustained by the accused appellants, were taken into consideration. Hence, this authority would not be helpful to the appellants.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the accused appellants Rupa Ram and Bhuria is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 6.6.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali; but the appeal filed by accused appellant Prabhura is allowed to the extent that he is not to pay any compensation to any of the injured persons and that part of the order dated 6.6.1995 is set aside and rest judgment and order is maintained.