Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ.
Asha Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2017
Decided On : 01-10-2019
H.S. Sandhu, Advocate, Anil Joshi, Advocate, Ajay Vyas, Advocate
The court reiterated that the delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that discrepancies in medical evidence can be explained by the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - EVIDENCE - EYE WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EXPLANATION - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Asha Ram, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Shri Ram under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and another accused, Rugharam (who absconded), armed with sharp weapons, assaulted Shri Ram, causing multiple injuries to his head and hands, resulting in his death. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution case was false and fabricated, the delay in lodging the FIR created doubt, and the medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay in lodging the FIR as the victim was in critical condition and was being taken to different hospitals for treatment. The court also found that the discrepancy in the number of injuries noticed in the medical report and the postmortem report was explainable as the doctor who conducted the postmortem had more time and opportunity to examine the body thoroughly. The court further found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Bhinv Singh and Mangilal, was consistent and reliable, and established the active participation of the appellant in the assault.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a delay in lodging the FIR? 2. Whether the medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness testimony? 3. Whether the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC was sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no delay in lodging the FIR as the victim's critical condition and the need for immediate medical attention justified the delay. 2. The court held that the discrepancy in the number of injuries noticed in the medical report and the postmortem report was explainable as the doctor who conducted the postmortem had more time and opportunity to examine the body thoroughly. 3. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, Bhinv Singh and Mangilal, was consistent and reliable, and established the active participation of the appellant in the assault. The court also found that the nature and extent of the injuries, as well as the circumstances of the assault, indicated that the appellant had the common intention to kill the victim.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant Asha Ram has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.07/2013:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Under Section 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.20,000/ - | 02 Months' Simple Imprisonment |
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
4. The complainant Ram Chandra (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Gachhipura on 27.10.2012 alleging inter alia that on 26.10.2012 at about 8 O' Clock in the evening, as usual, his father Shri Ram was sitting on the platform of the Shiv Temple in the public chowk of the village Paladi Raja. Shri Bhinv Singh Rajput was sitting besides his father. While both were sitting and talking to each other, Asha Ram (the accused appellant herein) and Rugharam (who absconded and was arrested later) came around armed with sharp weapons viz. axe and farsi and immediately launched an assault on his father's head. Bhinv Singh raised a hue and cry on which, the neighbours Mangilal and Chena Ram came around running. They also saw the accused assaulting his father by sharp weapons. His father received serious head injuries in the incident and was on the verge of death. The eye witnesses tried to save his father but could not succeed in their attempt. His father received numerous injuries on his head and also on the other parts of the body. He received information of the assault at his house on which, he too ran towards the place of the incident and saw the accused going away towards the house of Bheru Singh. The witnesses present at the spot namely Bhinv Singh, Mangilal and Chenaram told him of the events. As his father was in a precarious condition, they immediately took him to the Government Hospital, Gachhipura where no doctor was available. Thus, his father was taken to Degana. The doctor at Degana gave primary treatment and then, referred his father Shri Ram to Ajmer where, he was undergoing treatment in the Intensive Care Unit of the J.L.N. Hospital. The incident took place in the late hours of the night and his father was very serious. As he was engaged in treatment, the report was lodged with some delay. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.96/2012 (Ex.P/2) was registered at the Police Station Gachhipura for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and investigation was commenced. The injured Shri Ram expired on 06.11.2012 on which, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case.
5. The investigating officer undertook the routine steps of investigation, arrested the accused Asha Ram. The accused Rugharam could not be apprehended and absconded. Thus, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Asha Ram for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC whereas, the charge-sheet against Rugharam was filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. showing him to be absconding. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar who framed charge against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations but did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to convict and
