Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2598
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, G.R. Moolchandani, JJ.
Bhikki - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 94, 105 and 108 of 1987
Decided On : 21-08-2017
Ms. Gayatri Rathore and Mr. Mohit Balwada, Advocates, for the Appellants; B.N. Sandu, AAG-cum-P.P. and Mr. Aladeen Khan, P.P, for the Respondent/State
The court reiterated that the testimony of injured witnesses can be relied upon to establish the identity of the accused, even in the absence of independent witnesses, if the witnesses are found to be reliable and have no reason to falsely implicate the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MURDER - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - TRESPASS - INJURY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - PARTY FACTION - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - MODIFICATION OF OFFENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Eleven accused were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Subsequently, due to the death of the injured, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The trial court acquitted seven accused and convicted four accused for offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, and 452 IPC. Two of the convicted accused died during the pendency of the appeals, and the appeals were dismissed as having abated. The remaining two accused challenged their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the two accused, Bhikki son of Moolaram and Rameshwar son of Inderlal, for offences under Sections 302, 323, and 324 IPC. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the identity of the accused, despite the dark night, and that the witnesses were reliable and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The court also rejected the argument that the accused had acted in self-defense, as no evidence was presented to support this claim. The court further held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and had trespassed into the house of the complainant party with the intention to commit the offence, and therefore, no case for modification of the offence was made out.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had successfully established the identity of the accused? 2. Whether the witnesses were reliable and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused? 3. Whether the accused had acted in self-defense? 4. Whether the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and had trespassed into the house of the complainant party with the intention to commit the offence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the identity of the accused, despite the dark night, by relying on the testimony of the injured witnesses who were able to recognize the accused by their voice and gait. The court also noted that one of the accused was carrying a lantern and that a lantern was installed in the Chhappar of the House of the complainant party, which provided additional light. 2. The court found that the witnesses were reliable and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The court noted that the witnesses were injured in the occurrence and that their presence at the place of occurrence was stamped. The court also considered the fact that the accused had a party faction with the complainant party, but held that this was not sufficient to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. 3. The court rejected the argument that the accused had acted in self-defense, as no evidence was presented to support this claim. The court noted that the accused had not raised a plea of self-defense in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973, and that they had not examined any witnesses to prove the injuries on their person. 4. The court held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and had trespassed into the house of the complainant party with the intention to commit the offence. The court noted that the accused had come armed with lethal weapons and had caused injuries to the complainant party without any provocation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals of the two accused, Bhikki son of Moolaram and Rameshwar son of Inderlal, and upheld their conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 302, 323, and 324 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. —Motiram s/o Mooliram, Surajbhan s/o Heeralal, Mewaram s/o Kanhaiyalal, Natthuram s/o Ratanlal, Haribabu s/o Hetram, Lajja Ram s/o Heera, Jagdish s/o Mewaram, Rameshwar s/o Indralal, Bhikki s/o Moolaram, Suresh s/o Tikaram and Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram, were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in case arising out of FIR No. 155/84 (Ex.P.27), registered at Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Subsequently, due to death of Ram Dayal, injured, offence under Section 302 IPC was added.
2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 41/86 (118/85) rendered the impugned judgment dated 19.2.1987 whereby acquitted seven accused, namely Surajbhan, Mewaram, Natthu Ram, Haribabu, Lajja Ram, Moti Ram and Jagdish of the charges framed under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC. Rameshawar accused was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, whereas Bhikki was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 302/34 IPC. Suresh was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324/34, 302/34 IPC. Rammi @ Ramesh was convicted of offences under Sections 323, 324/34, 302/34 and 452 IPC. Having convicted the appellants of the above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced the above said four accused-appellants as under:-
Accused-Rameshwar
U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment.
U/s. 323/34 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment.
Accused-Bhikki
U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment.
U/s. 324 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment.
Accused-Rammi @ Ramesh
U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment.
U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 452 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment.
Accused-Suresh
U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months imprisonment.
U/s. 323 IPC: Three months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s. 324/34 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment.
(All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Bhikki s/o Moolaram and Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalli Ram preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/87, Suresh s/o Tikaram instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 and Rameshwar s/o Indralal filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 108/87. Since in all the three appeals same judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed, all the three appeals were ordered to be heard together.
4. We shall decide these three appeals listed before us together by this common judgment.
5. During pendency of the appeals, Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram, appellant No. 2 to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987, and Suresh s/o Tikaram, appellant to D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/87 have died.
6. In pursuance of orders dated 14.7.2017 and 10.8.2017, Shri Arpan Choudhary, SHO, Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur, has filed two separate affidavits dated 18.8.2017. Both the affidavits are taken on record. As per the said affidavits, Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram died on 18.1.1990, whereas Suresh s/o Tikaram expired on 29.5.2004.
7. In view of two separate affidavits filed which have been taken on record, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 94/1987 qua accused-appellant No. 2 Rammi @ Ramesh s/o Kalliram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 105/1987 preferred by Suresh s/o Tikaram are dismissed as having abated.
8. Out of 11 accused sent for trial, now we are left with two accused, namely Bhikki s/o Moolaram, appellant No. 1 to D.B. C
