IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Durga Ram S/o Jeeya Ram & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2019
Decided on : 01-02-2022
Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 374 (2) and 161 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 - Criminal Trial - Rioting and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction - Alleged that on that very day, at around 4 O' clock, he, his father Govindram and brother Mukhram were present in their home. His father had gone towards the funeral ground to attend the call of nature - Informant heard some commotion and thus, he along with his brother Mukhram rushed towards the source of the noise. His brother Mohanram's wife told them that their father was being beaten. On proceeding, they saw their father Shri Govindram being assaulted by Prakash S/o Shri Toluram Meghwal, Modaram, Shanker Ram, Durgaram and Ramlal S who were armed with barchhis, lathis, rake (jaiee) and axes. Both brothers i.e., Udaram and Mukhram tried to intervene on which, they too were beaten by the accused persons with their respective weapons. Shanker Ram was armed with a barchhi of which, he gave a blow on head of Govindram, who fell down and even thereafter, all the accused persons continued to rain blows with lathis and barchhis. Shanker Ram gave a barchhi blow on the head of the Mukhram due to which, he too fell down – Held, When medical report (Ex.P/10) was prepared, only one bruise was noticed on the abdomen of Mukhram whereas in the postmortem report as many as three bruises were noticed. Thus, the possibility of these bruises having been caused during the period Mukhram was under hospitalization and while he was shifted from one place to another cannot be ruled out. Even in the Parcha Bayan, there is no allegation regarding the accused appellant Mohanram being armed with a barchhi or any other weapon. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the medical jurist only to the extent of one head injury having been inflicted to the deceased Mukhram which proved fatal and that is specifically attributed to accused Shanker Ram. Thus, the allegation regarding Mohanram having inflicted barchhi injuries to the injured Govindram or the deceased Mukhram is not acceptable as it is not established by convincing evidence - Conviction of the appellant Shanker Ram is affirmed for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 IPC. However, he is acquitted from the charge under Sec. 148 IPC. The remaining accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The impugned judgment dated 11.07.2019 is modified accordingly - Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.30/12:-
| Accused -appellant :-Shanker Ram @ Shanker Lal | |||
| Offence Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in under lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302/149 | IPC Life Imprisonment | Rs.20,000/- | 1 Year's Additional R.I. |
| 148 IPC | 3 Years' R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 2 Months' Additional R.I. |
| 307/149 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | 6 Months' Additional R.I. |
| 325/149 IPC | 5 Years' RI | Rs.5,000/- | 4 Months' Additional RI |
| 323/149 IPC | 1 Year's RI | Rs.500/- | 1 Month's additional RI |
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
| Accused-appellants:- Prakash, Modaram, Ramlal,Badriram, Durgaram and Mohanram | |||
| Offence under Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302/149 | IPC Life Imprisonment | Rs.20,000/- | 1 Year's Additional R.I. |
| 148 IPC | 3 Years' R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 2 Months' Additional R.I. |
| 307/149 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | 6 Months' Additional R.I. |
| 325/149 IPC | 5 Years' RI | Rs.5,000/- | 4 Months' Additional RI |
| 323/149 IPC | 1 Year's RI | Rs.500/- | 1 Month's additional RI |
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded to them, they have approached this Court through this appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below:-
3. Udaram (PW.1) S/o Shri Govindram Meghwal, R/o Sherera, Police Station Napasar was admitted at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner on 26.06.2011. His Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) was recorded by the SHO PS Napasar at about 10.15 pm wherein, Shri Udaram alleged that on that very day, at around 4 O' clock, he, his father Govindram and brother Mukhram were present in their home. His father had gone towards the funeral ground to attend the call of nature. The informant heard some commotion and thus, he along with his brother Mukhram rushed towards the source of the noise. His brother Mohanram's wife told them that their father was being beaten. On proceeding, they saw their father Shri Govindram being assaulted by Prakash S/o Shri Toluram Meghwal, Modaram S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal, Shanker Ram S/o Shri Jiyaram Meghwal, Durgaram S/o Shri Jiyaram, Mohanram S/o Shri Baluram Jat, Badriram S/o Shri Tolaram Meghwal and Ramlal S/o Shri Mangilal Meghwal who were armed with barchhis, lathis, rake (jaiee) and axes. Both brothers i.e., Udaram and Mukhram tried to intervene on which, they too were beaten by the accused persons with their respective weapons. Shanker Ram was armed with a barchhi of which, he gave a blow on the head of Govindram, who fell down and even thereafter, all the accused persons continued to rain blows with lathis and barchhis. Shanker Ram gave a barchhi blow on the head of the Mukhram due to which, he too fell down. The assailants who had launched a concerted attack, caused injuries to all three on their heads and limbs with an intention to kill them while hurling insinuations that these persons should be killed. Previously, a quarrel had taken place between them owing to digging of a trench and because of this enmity, the attack had been made. Thereafter, the accused persons went away from the spot. Tilokaram and Hansraj, cousins of Udaram brought a camel- cart in which, all three were taken to their house in an injured condition and from there, they were brought to the hospital. On the basis of this Parcha-Bayan (Ex.P/1), an FIR No.72/2011 (Ex.P/29) came to be registered at the Police Station Napasa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for credible and corroborated evidence to establish liability in criminal cases, especially in cases involving vicarious liability under S....
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the common object of the accused in a fatal assault.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of vicarious liability by virtue of Section 149 IPC requires evidence of the formation of an unlawful assembly, and the court m....
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.