1999 Supreme(Raj) 1100
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.N.Mathur, J.
Bhupendra Singh & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S B. Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 1981.
Decided On : 22-04-1999
The court held that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in all cases and that the failure to do so does not necessarily mean that the prosecution has suppressed the truth or the origin and genesis of the occurrence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 325, 323, 147 I.P.C. - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - APPEAL - PARTLY ALLOWED - SECTION 360 CR.P.C. - BENEFIT EXTENDED TO ALL APPELLANTS - SENTENCE SET ASIDE - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of offences under Sections 325, 323, and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting the complainant, Umedram. The trial court sentenced the first and second appellants, Khian Ram and Mishrilal, to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 each, with an additional three months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth appellants were convicted of the same offenses but were given the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The sixth appellant, Poosaram, died during the pendency of the appeal, and the appeal against him was abated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witness, Umedram, and other eyewitnesses, who gave consistent and credible accounts of the incident. The court also considered the medical evidence, which corroborated the injuries sustained by Umedram.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the testimony of the injured witness and other eyewitnesses was credible and consistent, and that the medical evidence corroborated the injuries sustained by the injured witness. 2. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. The court noted that the incident occurred in 1979 and that the appellants had been convicted of substantive offenses under Section 325 of the IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years. The court found that there were no special reasons to deny the appellants the benefit of Section 360.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. The court confirmed the convictions of all the appellants but set aside the sentences awarded to the first and second appellants. The court directed that the first and second appellants be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties. The court granted the appellants one month's time to furnish the bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th March, 1981 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagour convicting the first and second appellant Khian Ram, Mishrilal under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of 5 payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. Both of them have also been convicted of offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default of payment to further undergo 15 days R.I. Both of them have also been convicted of offence under section 147 I.PC. and sentenced to 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in 3 default of payment to further undergo 15 days R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th appellants have been convicted of offence under Section 325/149, 323 and 147 I.P.C. They have been given benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.PC. sixth appellant Poosaram had died during the pendency of this appeal as such appeal qua him stands abated.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21st April, 1979 PW/1 Chotu Ram lodged an F.I.R. at police station, Nagour by producing a written report Ex.P/1 under signatures of PW/4 injured Umedram. It is that on 21.4.79 he was going towards his house from the railway station and when he reached near the house of Hemaram, the accused Tilokaram, Mishrilal, Kirtara, Ghuraram, Khinyaram Poosaram attacked on him. The accused Mishrilal gave a blow on his head by lathi. He raised 2nd blow but the same was warded of by raising left hand which caused fracture of the hand of which, he got fracture. It is further alleged that Khinyaram exhorted to give blows to injured Umedram and he himself gave a lathi blow on the leg of Umedaram, on account of which, he fell down. The other accused person namely Kirparam, gave a lathi blow causing injuries on right hand. Tilokaram inflicted injury on the leg. So as other accused persons also assaulted. Umedaram made a cry which attracted PW/1 Choturam, PW/2 Bhanwarlal & PW/5 Gayarram. On this information, police registered a case of offence under Section 147, 148, 323 & 307 I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation, after usual investigation, Police laid chargesheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused persons were charged for offence under section 147, 148, 323 & 307 I.P.C. They denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 10 witnesses and produced number of documents. In statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. appellant Nos. 1 to 6 pleaded not guilty. The first and second appellants Khinya Ram & Mishrilal stated that the prosecution case is false and fabricated. The trial court found the prosecution case proved and thus, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above.
4. Assailing the judgment it is contended by Mr. M.L, Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the prosecution case in right perspective. It is submitted that reading of the F.I.R. itself shows that a coloured version has been given to the incident. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the person of Tilaram which suggestes that the prosecution has not come with true version of the incident. On the other hand learned Addl. P.P. assisted by Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the statements of injured witness Umedram and the other eye witnesses are natural and trustworthy. The statements are corroborated by the medical evidence, as such no interference is called for by this court.
5. PW/4 Umedram has stated that he made a complaint against the Khinyaram to the State Govt, with respect to his functioning as Sarpanch, on account of which, an inquiry was instituted against him. As Khinyaram was not happy with him, about 4 to 5 days prior to the date of incident, the ac
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
