Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Mr. Sandeep Mehta and Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2012
Decided On : 20-02-2019
Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant; Mr.JPS Choudhary, PP, for the State
The court held that the prosecution had proved the offences alleged against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the dying declaration of the deceased, the testimony of the eye witnesses, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon used in the assault.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 341, 302 IPC READ WITH SECTION 3 (2) (V) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - CHALLENGE - DYING DECLARATION - EYE WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - INTENTION TO COMMIT MURDER - CONVERSION OF CONVICTION FROM SECTION 302 IPC TO SECTION 304 PART-I IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 341, 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The deceased was assaulted with a bamboo stick by the appellant, resulting in his death. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution witnesses were interested and unreliable, and the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by an accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration of the deceased, the testimony of the eye witnesses, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon used in the assault all corroborated each other and established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the appellant had the intention to commit murder, as evidenced by the repeated blows inflicted on the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the offences alleged against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by an accident. 4. Whether the conviction of the appellant should be converted from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-I IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the offences alleged against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the dying declaration of the deceased, the testimony of the eye witnesses, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon used in the assault. 2. The court found that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was reliable, as it was corroborated by other evidence and there was no reason to disbelieve them. 3. The court found that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by an accident, as they were consistent with being inflicted by a bamboo stick and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. 4. The court held that the conviction of the appellant should not be converted from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part-I IPC, as the appellant had the intention to commit murder, as evidenced by the repeated blows inflicted on the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present Jail Appeal was received from Jail and was registered as D.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No.977/2012. The same was admitted on 07.01.2013 by this court. The representative appeal challenging the judgement of conviction filed by the accused Ram Singh was registered as D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1061/2012. The representative Appeal was time barred by 16 days and therefore, the same was disposed of by this court on 07.01.2013. The instant criminal Jail appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgement and order of conviction dated 13.09.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No.140/2010) whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | In Default |
| 341 IPC | One month simple imprisonment |
|
|
| 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act | Life imprisonment | 1000/- | 02 months simple imprisonment |
2. Brief facts necessary to be noted are that a report was lodged by Ummed Ram (Ex.P/10) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Khinwara, District Pali on 18.10.2010. In the report, he stated that he used to go to Kareli for earning his livelihood. On 18.10.2010 at around 8:00 am in the morning when he reached Tokarla near Kareli river, Ram Singh S/o Garjidan intercepted him and forced him to go to his well. When he reached there, Ram Singh assaulted him with a bamboo stick due to which he received injuries on his head, shoulders and legs. He raised a hue and cry whereupon, Narayan Lal S/o Deva Ji saw his plight and informed his son Hema Ram. Hema Ram and Bharat came to the place of the incident and saw Ram Singh indulged in the assault. Thereafter, Ram Singh ran away from the place of the incident. Hema Ram and Bharat took him to Khinwara Hospital for treatment. The reason for assault was that 5-6 months ago, Ram Singh had misbehaved with a lady of his community and he was aware of that incident, therefore, after intercepting him, the accused assaulted him. Ummed Ram affixed his thumb impression on this report. The report was submitted on 18.10.2010 at around 1:20 pm at Government Hospital, Khinwara District Pali.
3. On this report, a formal F.I.R. No.107/2010 was registered at Police Station Khinwara District Pali for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC against the accused-appellant. The police started the investigation. Ummed Ram passed away on 20.10.2010 due to his injury, therefore, offence under section 302 IPC was added to the case.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 341, 302 of IPC & section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 341, 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to the charge sheeted accused, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/16 documents were in support of its case exhibited. Three documents i.e. Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3) were exhibited in defence.
6. The accused-appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was falsely implicated and that he was innocent.
7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 341, 302 IPC read with section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide judgement dated 13.09.2012. Hence this appeal. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and the learned Pub
