IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, RAMESHWAR VYAS, JJ.
Madhuram S/o Sh. Javrilal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 313, 437-A and 161 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 302/34, 304 Part-I, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 427 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Appeal against conviction – Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Alleged that in morning, (PW-5) had been threatened premise that since he had given out their names in incident involving assault on a roadways' bus driver, they would take revenge by killing him - Complainant was sitting at his shop was sitting outside shop lathis and iron rods came there and launched an assault on (PW-5) with intention of killing him - Alleged that assailants had launched assault in order to wreak vengeance on account of an old land dispute and also on premise that they had been named in assault launched on roadways bus driver - Complainant got hurt on his head and leg on his head with iron rods, causing him serious injuries which resulted in profuse bleeding. also sustained injuries on his head, hands and other parts of body – Held, Two injuries of Malaram were found to be grievous and injuries of were found to be simple in nature after medical examination and thus, the accused Madhuram, Jetharam and Tarachand deserve to be convicted for the offences under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC - accused definitely had the common intention to commit offence conviction has to be recorded for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC - conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court for offence under Section 148 is also quashed - Accused-appellants are on bail On going through the record, it becomes clear that the accused Tarachand has remained in custody for nearly 11 months and 17 days during trial and during pendency of the instant appeal - Appeals are allowed/partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (153/2011):
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Section 148 IPC | 2 Years' S.I. | Rs. 1,000/- | Month's S.I. |
| Section 323/149 IPC | 6 Months' S.I. | Rs. 500/- | 1 Month's S.I. |
| Section 325/149 IPC | 3 Years' S.I. | Rs. 5,000/- | 3 Months' SI |
| Section 302/149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs. 20,000/- | 6 Months' SI |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below:
On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 246/2011 (Ex.P/32) came to be registered at the Police Station Basni, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 427 IPC and investigation was commenced. Kishan was taken to the M.D.M. Hospital, Jodhpur for treatment where he was declared dead. Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of Kishan. The injured persons were also examined and their injury reports were prepared. Some of the accused assailants had also received injuries in the incident and they too were provided treatment in the hospital. Since Kishan passed away, offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. The accused persons were arrested and as usual, acting on the information, allegedly provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investigating officer proceeded to effect recoveries of the weapons and clothes
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the individual liability of the accused appellants for their acts during the incident, as well as the requirement of clear and cogent evidence to e....
Point of law: only permissible view would be to hold each accused responsible for his individual act. As the incident took place at the spur of moment after the violence acts committed by the members....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the absence of intention to kill, leading to the alteration of the conviction....
Once it is concluded that case is of free fight, concept of vicarious liability under Section 149, IPC cannot be applied to such a case.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
The court ruled that the attack was a result of provocation without premeditation, altering offenses from murder to lesser charges under Section 304 of the IPC.
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.