2014 Supreme(Raj) 2036
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ.
Prabhu Gujar and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2006.
Decided On : 2-12-2014
Advocates:
For the Accused-Appellants:Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor.
For the complainant:Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Advocate.
In a case of free fight, where both parties sustain injuries, each accused will be responsible for their individual liability.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - FREE FIGHT - SECTION 324, 323/149, 341, 148 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE - INJURIES CAUSED BY BOTH PARTIES - TRIAL COURT FINDING OF FREE FIGHT UPHELD - APPELLANT GRANTED PROBATION.
Fact of the Case:
A cross-case arose from a dispute between two parties, resulting in injuries to both sides. The complainant-party alleged that the accused-appellants trespassed into their house and caused injuries, while the accused-appellants claimed self-defense. The trial court found that it was a case of free fight and convicted both parties for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's finding of free fight and the conviction of all the appellants. However, considering the appellant's prolonged trial and the fact that the other co-accused had been granted probation, the High Court released the appellant on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offender's Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that it was a case of free fight. 2. Whether the appellant should be granted probation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court found that the trial court's finding of free fight was just and proper based on the evidence presented. 2. The High Court granted probation to the appellant considering the appellant's prolonged trial and the fact that the other co-accused had been granted probation.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court's finding of free fight and the conviction of all the appellants. However, the High Court released the appellant on probation for a period of one year.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appellants viz., (i) Prabhu Gurjar, (ii) Suresh @ Gendya (iii) Hari Singh, (iv) Badri Gurjar (v) Jagdish, (vi) Girraj and (vii) Ramsahay, all seven in number, are facing trial in a cross-case at the instance of the complainant - Ganpat, who hod lodged written-complaint (Exhibit-P/9), leading to registration of First Information Report bearing No.163/2005 (Exhibit-P/10) at Police Station, Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur. The complainant Ganpat along with other injured were tried for causing injuries to present accused-appellants and also for murder of one - Kanji, a relation of the appellants.
2. Vide a separate order of even date, we have decided three appeals (i) D.B. Criminal Appeal bearing Nos.1099/2006 (Chiranji & Others v. State of Rajasthan) , (ii) D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1013/2006 (Ganpat & Another v. State of Rajasthan) and (iii) D.B. Criminal Appeal No.904/2007 (State of Rajasthan v. Ramswaroop and Others) respectively.
3. Since the present appeal has arisen out of cross version, we proceed to decide the same separately, but simultaneously with the above mentioned appeals to avoid emergence of conflicting findings in parallel proceeding.
4. However, we have confined ourselves to the evidence, which has been led in the trial against the appellants. Hence, for deciding the present appeal, we have proceeded to do appraisal of the evidence given in trial against the appellants, uninfluenced by the evidence given by the appellants in the case in which complainant-party was tried, convicted and sentenced.
5. All the seven appellants have preferred the present appeal to assail the judgment dated 20.09.2006, whereby the trial Court has convicted appellant No.6, namely Girraj for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323/149, 341 and 148 of Indian Penal Code for causing injury with an incised weapon on the head of Suresh (PW-4). Remaining six appellants, namely (i) Prabhu Gurjar, (ii) Suresh @ Gendya, (iii) Hari Singh, (iv) Badri Gurjar, (v) Jagdish and (vii) Ramsahay have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149 and 341 of Indian Penal Code.
6. The trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced appellant No.6, namely Girraj as under:-
"For offence under Section 324 I.P.C., appellant - Girraj was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
For offence under Section 323/149 I.P.C., appellant - Girraj was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
For offence under Section 341 I.P.C., appellant - Girraj was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
For offence under Section 148 I.P.C., appellant - Girraj was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment."
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
7. So far as remaining six appellants are concerned, having convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149 and 341 of Indian Penal Code, the trial Court had released them on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act.
8. We have been informed that the period of probation of the six appellants is already over.
9. In the present case, written-report [Exhibit-P/9] was submitted by Ganpat (PW-2) before Sub-Inspector Bachhu Singh (PW-15) at Police Station, Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur.
10. In the written-complaint, Ganpat (PW-2) stated that on 14.05.2005 at about 06:00 A.M. he was taking tea with his family members, namely Smt. Shanti, Suresh, Chiranji, Latoor, Ramesh and Kanchan. In the meanwhile, all the present appellants, along with Kanji Gurjar armed with lathi, danda, kulhari and gandasi came and trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused injuries. Badri gave gandasi blow on the head of Chiranji. Appellant - Ramsahay gave injury with kulhari on the head of Ganpat, and they also caused injuries to Smt. Shanti, Smt. Kanchan, Suresh, Latoor and Ramesh.
11. In the present case, on the sid
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
