CriLJ 4420, RLW 2004 (2) Raj 1338, 2004 (2) WLC 405
Rajasthan High Court
BENCH: Hon’ble S.K. Sharma J., Hon’ble KC Sharma J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29th January 2004
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
- Section 149 of IPC (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in the prosecution of a common object)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 148 of IPC (Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon)
- Section 447 of IPC (Punishment for criminal trespass)
- Section 325 of IPC (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt)
- Section 324 of IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
- Section 323 of IPC (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
- Section 212 of IPC (Harbouring offender)
- Section 313 of CrPC (Power to examine the accused)
BACKS STORY
In this case, the report was submitted by Munni Ram at Police Station Khedli District Alwar on September 2, 1994, at 8.30 PM that on September 2, 1994, at 6.30 PM while complainant party was ploughing their field, Buddhi, Bhag Chand, Rajendra, Om Prakash, Vijay, Sampat, Manohari, Ashok and Brij Mohan armed with Pharsas, Ballam, and lathis, came there on a tractor which was driven by Dinesh. The tractor was deliberately pushed towards Chhuttan (deceased) who fell and his legs were crushed. Buddhi then exhorted to kill Chhuttan and inflicted blow with Pharsa on his head, Rajendra gave a blow with Ballam and others with lathis on the legs of Chhuttan. When Khushi Ram and Phool Singh attempted to save Chhuttan, Rajendra gave a blow with Ballam on the back of Khushi Ram and Sampat and Ashok gave blows with lathi and Pharsa on his legs and hand. Vijay and Om Prakash gave blows with lathis on the back of Phool Singh.
Chhuttan died at the spot and his dead body was taken to his house by the complainant party. The investigation was kept pending against accused Manohari and Vijay and the charge sheet was filed against other accused. In due course, the case came for trial before the learned Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge Alwar. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses.
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Dr. Ananya Goswami, the Medical Officer who performed an autopsy on the dead body and noticed following ante mortem injuries:
“1. Incised wound 6″ x 1” up to brain matter cutting through the skull bone.
Brain matter was extruding through the wound. The wound is extending from the left forehead to the top of the skull in the sagittal plate.
- 3 lacerated wounds size 4cm x 4cm present on the autero medial aspect of the middle of the right leg-fracture of both of the leg bones.
- Lacerated wound size 4cm x 1cm below the knee on Tibia tubero-city bone deep present on the Rt. feet.
- 2 penetrating wound size 5cm x 2cm & 3 x 3cm present on the anterior aspect on the left leg in the middle-fracture of both of the leg bones.
- 2 bruises (a) measuring 9″ x 1″ oblique in direction present on the abdomen.
- 11 measuring 9″ x 1″ oblique cross the I, present on the anterior abdomen wall.”
So Dr. Ananya Goswami opined that the cause of death was due to Head injuries laceration of brain and fracture of skull bone & leg bone &hammorhagic shock due to multiple injuries.
Khushi Ram and Phool Singh are the injured eyewitnesses and they sustained following injuries:
Khushi Ram
- Penetrating wound 5cm x 2cm with cavity deep left scapular region.
- Abrasion 2cm x 1.5cm.
- Abrasion 1cm x 0.5cm Thumb of the left hand.
- Bruise 3cm x 2cm Lumber region on just above sacrum.
- Bruise 3cm x 2cm wrist joint of Rt. hand.
X-ray report of Khushi Ram reads as under:
There is a fracture of neck of 4th & 5th rib D. Phool Singh:
- Bruise 6crn x 1cm Rt. scapular region.
- Tenderness 3cm x 2cm Lateral side of Thorax lower rib of Lt.side.
JUDGEMENT
It was found that the prosecution was failed to establish reasonable doubt against the appellants Ashok Kumar, Brij Mohan, Bhag Chand, and Om Prakash and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
The appeal of appellants Ashok Kumar, Brij Mohan, Bhag Chand, and Om Prakash was allowed and they stand acquitted of all the charges. They were on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled. Conviction and sentence of appellants Buddhi Lal, Dinesh, and Rajendra were set aside.
Instead appellants Buddhi Lal, Dinesh and Rajendra were convicted under:
Under Section 302/34 IPC each suffered Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months of rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 325/34 IPC each suffered five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500A in default to further suffer three months of rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 324/34 IPC each suffered two years of rigorous Imprisonment. The appellants Dinesh and Rajendra were on bail. They would be taken into custody forthwith and their bail bonds stand canceled. The impugned judgment of the learned trial judge stands modified as indicated above.