1987 Supreme(Raj) 788
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
Shree Ram And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 443 of 1978.
Decided On : 08-09-1987
Advocates:
For the Appellant:J.P. Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.C. Sharma, PP.
The court has the discretion to consider a compromise reached between the parties and acquit the accused if it is satisfied that further prosecution would not serve any purpose.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 307 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE - COMPROMISE - SECTION 482 CRPC - COURT'S DISCRETION - SUMMARY: The court analyzed the evidence presented in a criminal case involving charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempted murder. The court found inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses and determined that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had inflicted the head injury on the victim. The court also considered the fact that the parties had reached a compromise and filed a joint application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking acquittal. The court, in its discretion, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
An incident occurred on November 24, 1975, where multiple accused allegedly attacked the complainant and his family members, resulting in injuries. A police report was filed, and the accused were charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 307 for attempted murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish that the accused had inflicted the head injury on the victim. The court also noted that the parties had reached a compromise and filed a joint application seeking acquittal.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had inflicted the head injury on the victim. 2. Whether the court should consider the compromise reached between the parties and acquit the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had inflicted the head injury on the victim. The court found inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses and noted that the victim's statement was unreliable due to his unconsciousness at the time of the injury. 2. The court held that it had the discretion to consider the compromise reached between the parties and acquit the accused. The court noted that the parties had resolved their differences and that further prosecution would not serve any purpose.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted them of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that an incident took place on 24th November, 1975 at 7.00 a.m. of which the report was lodged on 28-11-1975 at 8.30 a.m. by Munshilal to the effect that his son Veer Singh, his father Chandu and his brother-in-law Dharamveer had come to village Gothra. On that day accused persons Ram Chander, Sri Ram, Chiranji, Kishan, Dharmpal, Mst. Narayni, Mst. Saraswati and Mst. Naval Kaur armed with various weapons attacked them, out of these persons Ram Chander and Sri Ram were armed with Farsi while Chiranji had Lathi and so also others. It is mentioned that those persons caused injuries on the persons of Veer Singh and Dharamveer. The report was lodged on 28th November, 1975 on which the case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 447 Indian Penal Code was registered. It is pertinent to mention here that before lodging this report the complainant party got the injured medically examined as a private case, obtained the reports and submitted then along with the First Information Report. The Police after completing the necessary investigation submitted a charg:-sheet against eight persons. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. Accused filed a written submission and claimed the right of private defence of person and property both. They examined two witnesses in their defence also.
2. It is pertinent to mention that before the judgment could be delivered in the case, even prior the final arguments, the parties filed written compromise which was taken on record on 23rd August, 1978. There after the arguments of the case were heard and the learned Judge after disbelieving part of the evidence, acquitted Dharampal, Mst. Naval Kaur, Mst. Narayni and Mst. Saraswati of all the offences. He also held that the offences under Sections 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code are not made out in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, acquitted them all of those charges. He however, convicted the appellant Sree Ram for substantive offence under Section 307 and sentenced him to 26 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/- and rest of the three persons viz. Kishan, Ramchandra and Chiranji were convicted under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 and sentenced them to the same imprisonment as Sri Ram, in default of payment of fine each of the accused was to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. It is against this conviction and sentence that the appellant filed an appeal before this court.
3. Before the appeal could come up for hearing, yet another application was filed under Section 482 Cr.PC by the complainant as well as the accused mentioning that compromise have been entered into both the parties and their all cases concerning land and other matters have also been compromised. Therefore, the accused may be acquitted in terms of compromise.
4. In this appeal, it is to be seen whether Section 307 Indian Penal Code is at all made out in the circumstances of the case. This injured Dharamveer, who had sustained the grevious Injury by sharp edged weapon on his head is an incised wound 4 c.m. X 31/2 c.m. on the left parietal region with a fissured fracture of left parietal bone, the question is whether accused Sri Ram who has been charged and convicted for the subtantive offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code has been attracted, and he rather attributes his injury to Ram Chander and to this extent this is corroborated by the version of Munshilal, who is author of the First Information Report, which is silent about the person who inflicted the head injury. Thus, statement of Veer Singh and Manoharlal are of not much importance particularly because the Trial Court holding them to be partly reliable have acquitted as many as four accused persons and in the face of the above infirmity about the infliction of the head injury by Shri Ram on Dharamveer, I find that the finding is not based on proper appreciation of evidence rather it is contrary to the p
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
