Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Roodmal Son - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1987
Decided On : 10-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Soni, Mr. Hemant Dagur, Mr. Mohit Balwada
For the State : Mr. R.R. Gurjar
For the Respondent: Mr. Vipul Jaiman, Mr. S.S. Sunda
In a case of "free-fight", each individual accused is liable for the injury particularly caused by him and if the Court is unable to find which particular injury was caused by which particular accused, then that accused cannot be held liable for any of the injuries caused and is entitled to be acquitted.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307 IPC - FREE FIGHT - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - SECTION 34/149 IPC - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE - RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and five others attacked the complainant and his family members with lathis and other weapons. The appellant claimed that he acted in self-defence and that the injuries sustained by the complainant were minor and superficial. The trial court rejected the appellant's defence and convicted him based on the testimony of the injured witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder. The court found that the appellant had the knowledge that his act of striking the complainant on the head with a lathi was likely to cause death. The court also rejected the appellant's claim of self-defence, holding that the injuries sustained by the complainant were not minor and superficial and that the appellant had not provided any explanation for causing such injuries.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence. 3. Whether the appellant could be held liable for the injuries sustained by the complainant with the aid of Section 34/149 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC because he had the knowledge that his act of striking the complainant on the head with a lathi was likely to cause death. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence to conclude that the appellant's act was intentional and that it was likely to cause death. 2. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence because the injuries sustained by the complainant were not minor and superficial and because the appellant had not provided any explanation for causing such injuries. The court noted that the appellant had not shown that he was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured and that he had used excessive force in defending himself. 3. The court held that the appellant could not be held liable for the injuries sustained by the complainant with the aid of Section 34/149 IPC because the prosecution had failed to prove which injuries were caused by which accused.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the appellant's sentence from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The court found that the appellant was entitled to a reduction in sentence due to his age and the time that had elapsed since the incident.
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.11.1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana (District Sikar) in Sessions Case No. 5/1986, the accused-appellant is before this Court by way of this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court after finding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It is to be noted that learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for offences under Sections 147, 148, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC and co-accused, five in number, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 325/149, 323/149 and 307/149 IPC after giving them benefit of doubt.
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that complainant-Shri Chhotelal submitted a written report Ex.P1 before Police Station Thoi on 30.10.1983 alleging therein that on the same day about 10.00 a.m. in the morning while his brother-Shri Nemi Chand was going to his well by a tractor as many as eleven persons including appellant and the acquitted accused attacked him with lathi, rapan and jelies in pursuance of their common object and on hue and cry being made by Shri Nemi Chand, when his father-Shri Khyalidass and brother-Shri Pooran reached at the place of incident, they were also beaten. It was further alleged in the report that he and some other persons took the injured persons Shri Nemi Chand, Shri Khyalidass and Shri Pooran to Kanwat hospital where they were admitted for treatment. On the basis of this written report, FIR No. 140/1983 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 427 and investigation was undertaken. After usual investigation charge-sheet for offences under Sections 147, 148, 325 and Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. was filed against six persons including appellant and the learned trial Court after committal of the case to it framed charge for offences under Sections 147, 148, 325/149, 323/149 and 307/149 IPC against five accused whereas against appellant, apart from above offences, charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was also separately framed. In order to prove the charges prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant and acquitted accused denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution. In defence appellant-Shri Roodmal and and acquitted accused-Shri Boduram appeared as witness and also produced documentary evidence. Learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence available on the record passed the impugned judgment and order.
3. On the basis of evidence made available on record by the parties, learned trial Court has arrived to the following findings :
(1) The place of incident is not a way situated near the agriculture land of one Shri Sunda Dass as alleged and claimed by the prosecution.
(2) It is a case of "free-fight" and, therefore, the accused-party had no right of self defence. Otherwise also, the prosecution was not obliged to furnish explanation about injuries received by the accused persons as their injuries are of minor and superficial nature. Accused have failed to show and explain in what circumstances they caused injuries to complainant party which are grievous in nature and one of the injury has been opined to be dangerous to life. Benefit of right of private defence of the body and of property cannot be granted to accused.
(3) The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly having a common object to cause death of Shri Nemi Chand and, therefore, all of them cannot be held liable for causing injury to Shri Nemi Chand with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.
(4) The prosecution has failed to prove, except appellan
