Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, MANOJ KUMAR GARG, JJ.
RAM KUNWAR @ RATAN LAL S/O BHIKA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 632, 559, 608, 668, 669, 910 of 2011
Decided on : 16-08-2017
Ranjeet Joshi, Advocate, Dhirendra Singh, Advocate, P S Choudhary, Advocate, Rajeev Bishnoi, Advocate, C S Ojha, Advocate, Ravindra Acharya, Advocate, Deepak Nehra, Advocate, Mahendra Singh Choudhary, Advocate
The reliability of the injured witness's testimony, the concept of common intention under Section 149 of the IPC, and the application of legal principles regarding the testimony of an injured witness were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 & 302/149 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 & 302/149 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented, the role of the accused, the injuries sustained, and the legal principles regarding the testimony of an injured witness. The court analyzed the medical evidence, witness statements, and the concept of common intention under Section 149 of the IPC. The final decision upheld the conviction of some accused while acquitting others based on the evidence and legal principles applied.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land, resulting in a violent attack by the accused on the complainant's family, leading to the death of three family members and injuries to the complainant. The police filed a formal FIR under various sections of the IPC, and after trial, six accused were convicted while seven were acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injured witness's testimony was reliable and consistent, and the medical evidence corroborated her account. The court upheld the conviction of some accused based on the evidence, while acquitting others due to lack of specific roles assigned by the witness.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the reliability of the witness testimony, the role of the accused, and the application of Section 149 of the IPC regarding common intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the injured witness, the medical evidence, and legal principles regarding the testimony of an injured witness and common intention under Section 149 of the IPC to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed one appeal, maintaining the conviction of one accused while acquitting two others. It dismissed the appeals of three accused, affirming their conviction. The appeals filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan were also dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. All these six appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Merta dated 10.06.2011 in Sessions Case No. 17/2008 (04/2008) whereby, the accused appellants (1) Ramkunwar @ Ratan Lal (2) Narayani (3) Janki (4) Gariba Ram (5) Sukha Ram (6) Dharma Ram have been convicted for offence under Sections 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 & 302/149 IPC and sentenced as under :-
U/s 148 IPC
Two Years simple Imprisonment
U/s 323/149 IPC
One year simple imprisonment
U/s 324/149 IPC
Two years simple imprisonment
U/s 325/149 IPC
Three years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
U/s 326/149 IPC
Five years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
U/s 302/149 IPC
Life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months simple imprisonment.
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the six appeals, four appeals namely, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.632/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 559/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.668/2011, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.669/2011 have been filed by the accused appellants against their conviction and sentence, whereas, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 608/2011 & D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 910/2011 have been filed by the complainant and the State of Rajasthan respectively against the order of acquittal passed in favour of seven accused persons viz. (1) Sumitra @ Sunita (2) Indra (3) Munni (4) Hapu Ram (5) Baudi (6) Nena Ram (7) Seniki @ Sina.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Prem D/o Mangu Ram filed a written report before the police station Merta Road mentioning that "we had quarrel with regard to land with Ghamanda Ram and his family members since last 25 years. Some quarrel is also going on with Deena Ram Jat and his family members which is also with regard to field and cases are also going on. About 20 days back, some quarrel had taken place between us and between family members of Ghamanda Ram and a case was also registered for the said quarrel. Today on 10.10.2007 at about 12-1 O'clock when she alongwith her father Mangu Ram, brother Ram Kishore and Ram Niwas reached near Dapaliya Nada in a camel cart with herd, the accused persons namely, (1) Ratan lal @ Ram Kunwar (2) Sukha Ram (3) Gariba Ram (4) Dharma Ram (5) Karma Ram (6) Richhpal (7) Dina Ram (8) Jimnaram (9) Shivlal (10) Amra Ram (11) Chenki (12) Baudi (13) Kali (14) Munni (15) Punki (16) wife of Gariba Ram (17) wife of Dharma Ram (18) Bajudi (19) Narayani (20) Janki (21) Goga Ram (22) Mahendra (23) Mohan Ram (24) Nema Ram (25) Sukha Ram S/o Jala Ram (26) Hari Ram (27)Pukhraj (28) Giga Ram and 10-12 more persons armed with axe, lathi, Dantal, Kaniya, Pipes, Gun Pistol, iron rod etc attacked them. Due to the injuries caused by the accused persons, her father Mangu Ram, brothers Ram Kishore and Ram Niwas received so many injuries and due to the injuries, they died on the spot. It is alleged in the complaint that Pukhraj and Gariba Ram fired from their gun and pistol respectively. In the said assault, the complainant also received injuries caused by the accused. The accused person took away their camel cart. It is further stated that she went to the Dhani where she narrated the entire incident to her mother and sister-in-law.
4. On this written report (Ex. P/43), the police registered a formal FIR (Ex.P./66) under Section 302, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149, 379 IPC and 3/25 of Indian Arms Act at Police Station Merta Road.
5. After due investigation, the police filed challan against total 13 persons before the court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magist
