Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, Prakash Gupta, JJ.
Sheo Narayan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2009
Decided On : 29-03-2016
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and causing hurt. They appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in framing the charges, that the prosecution failed to prove that they were in possession of the disputed land, that the prosecution witnesses improved their statements substantially, and that they acted in exercise of their right of private defence. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the trial court did not err in framing the charges, that the prosecution proved that the appellants were not in possession of the disputed land, that the prosecution witnesses did not improve their statements substantially, and that the appellants did not act in exercise of their right of private defence. The High Court upheld the convictions of the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323, and 323/149 of the IPC and dismissed their appeal. However, the High Court allowed the appeal of the three female appellants and acquitted them of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and causing hurt. They appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in framing the charges, that the prosecution failed to prove that they were in possession of the disputed land, that the prosecution witnesses improved their statements substantially, and that they acted in exercise of their right of private defence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the trial court did not err in framing the charges, that the prosecution proved that the appellants were not in possession of the disputed land, that the prosecution witnesses did not improve their statements substantially, and that the appellants did not act in exercise of their right of private defence.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in framing the charges? 2. Whether the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were in possession of the disputed land? 3. Whether the prosecution witnesses improved their statements substantially? 4. Whether the appellants acted in exercise of their right of private defence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the trial court did not err in framing the charges because the evidence showed that the incident took place at the boundary of Khasra No. 29/2, which was within the jurisdiction of the trial court. 2. The High Court held that the prosecution proved that the appellants were not in possession of the disputed land because the revenue court had passed an order restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of the complainant party. 3. The High Court held that the prosecution witnesses did not improve their statements substantially because their statements were consistent with each other and with the other evidence in the case. 4. The High Court held that the appellants did not act in exercise of their right of private defence because they were the aggressors and they were not entitled to use deadly weapons to protect their property.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the convictions of the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323, and 323/149 of the IPC and dismissed their appeal. However, the High Court allowed the appeal of the three female appellants and acquitted them of all charges.
Prakash Gupta, J.
1. By this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the appellants seek to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Tonk in Sessions Case No. 58/2004 whereby all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:--
1. Under Section 148 IPC:-- each of the appellants to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month;
2. Under Section 447 IPC: each of the appellants to undergo two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for seven days;
3. Under Sections 302, 302/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
4. Under Sections 307, 307/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
5. Under Sections 325, 325/149 IPC:-- each of appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months."
2. All substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Facts of case, as summarized, are that on 28.6.2004, Budhalal (PW-16), Sub-Inspector, Police Station Newai recorded Parcha Bayan (Exhibit P-56) of injured Shaitan son of Ram Niwas Meena. Said Parcha Bayan, when translated into English, reads as under:--
"Parcha Bayan of Shri Shaitan S/o. Ram Niwas, by caste Meena, aged 24 years, agriculturist by profession resident of Govindpura, Police Station Newai, District Tonk, who stated that I am residing at Govindpura and doing agriculture work. Today i.e. on 28.6.04 at about 8.00 I along with two ploughs, out of which one was to be driven by bullocks and the another by the camel, went to our land known as bolyawali. Govind son of Bhajjya, Sheyonarain son of Ladu, Harpal son of Ladu, Budh Ram son of Ladu, Ramawatar son of Govinda, Sita Ram son of Govinda, Narvada widow of Ladu, wife of Govinda, Durga D/o Ladu with a common intention came there armed with Lakdi, Gandasi and Kulahadi and started ploughing our field bearing Kharsa No. 29/2. We four brothers, Mool Chand, Kailash, Prahlad and I along with my mother Gula, my sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mahima W/o Mool chand, Santra W/o Kailash, Kajodi, my wife, Kesar and Mamta, Seema D/o Kailash and Jyoti who were grazing goats there told them not to plough our land. Hearing this, they opened attack upon me and my brothers with 'lathi', 'gandasi' and 'kulhari'. Ramavatar had a 'gandasi' in his hand, Sheo Narain had a 'barchi', Sita Ram had a 'kulhari' and others had 'lakdies' and 'lathies' wrapped with wires. Due to the attack Prahlad sustained injuries by 'kulhari' and 'farsis' on his head and Prahlad also sustained injuries by 'lakdis' on his hands and legs. Thereafter, the accused inflicted blows by 'kulhari' and 'farsis' on the head of Kailash and his hands and legs were also broken. Mool Chand inflicted a farsi blow on my head and Ramotar inflicted a 'farsi' blow on my ear and all of them inflicted 'lathi' blows on me due to which I suffered injuries on various parts of my body. When my mother Gulab, my bhabhi Mahima, Santra and niece Kesar came for the rescue they were also beaten by 'lathis', 'gandasi' due to which they also suffered injuries on various parts on their bodies. In the occurrence my niece Seema also sustained injuries. My cousin Durga took all of us in a camel cart and then by the Jeep of Nanda Yadav, to Newai Hospital where my both brothers succumbed to the injuries. The accused persons with common intention to grab our land had opened attack to kill us due to w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
