Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Pappu @ Bhika Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1990
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307, 149, 148, 447, 323 and 147 - Armed with Dangerous Weapons – Appeal Against Conviction - Hanuman Prasad, his younger brother and their father were working in their field - appellant No.2 and 4 entered in their field to collect mouse-melons (kachariya) - When they were told by injured persons to not collect melons, they called their brothers appellant No.3 and 1 and their father – appellant No.5 - Appellant No.1, 3 and 5 accordingly came to field and appellant No.1 to 4 attacked injured persons - Injured persons lodged an FIR against present appellants at police station -Held, It is proven that all accused except Birbal Ram were armed with dangerous weapons - Fact that all accused gathered at scene of crime armed with dangerous weapons coupled with fact that injured persons had suffered injuries shows that they all had gathered with common objective to carry out an illegal act and they are hence liable under Section 148 I.P.C - Adverting to sentence part, it is to be noted that incident is of 1989 and instant appeal has been pending since 1990; one of appellants has passed away and others are between 50 to 60 years of age - Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of case, this Court is of view that imprisonment of one year (instead of three years) for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. will subserve ends of justice - Other sentence(s) also deserve to be suitably reduced - Hence, sentences awarded to accused-appellants No.1 to 4 are reduced/modified - Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of the present appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 18.07.1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.47/89, whereby all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :
| Appellant | Conviction | Sentence |
| Pappu | 307, 149 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment |
|
| 148 | One-year simple imprisonment |
| 447 | One-month rigorous imprisonment | |
| 323 | Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days | |
| Jugli Ram | 307, 149 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment |
|
| 148 | One-year simple imprisonment |
| 447 IPC | One-month rigorous imprisonment | |
| 323, 149 IPC | Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days. | |
| Shera Ram | 307, 149 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment |
|
| 148 | One-year simple imprisonment |
| 447 IPC | One-month rigorous imprisonment | |
| 323, 149 IPC | Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days. | |
| Prem Chand | 307, 149 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment |
|
| 148 | One-year simple imprisonment |
| 447 IPC | One-month rigorous imprisonment | |
| 323 | Six-months simple imprisonment and a fine of rupees hundred. In default of payment of fine simple imprisonment of 15 days | |
| Birbalram | 307, 149 IPC | Three-years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. In default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment |
| 147 IPC | Six-months simple imprisonment |
3. Hence, the present appeal qua accused appellant No.5 – Birbal Ram stands abated.
4. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the present case are that around 4:30 pm on 01.10.1989, Hanuman Prasad, his younger brother Jagdish and their father Likhmaram (hereinafter ‘the injured persons’) were working in their field. Jugli Ram and Prem Prakash (appellant No.2 and 4) entered in their field to collect mouse-melons (kachariya). When they were told by the injured persons to not collect the melons, they called their brothers Shera Ram and Pappu (appellant No.3 and 1) and their father – Birbal Ram (appellant No.5). Appellant No.1, 3 and 5 accordingly came to the field and appellant No.1 to 4 attacked the injured persons. The injured persons lodged an FIR against the present appellants, bearing FIR No.87/1989 at police station Chunavadh District Sriganganagar for offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 147 of IPC.
5. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused appellants under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 147 of IPC before the court of competent criminal jurisdiction.
6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused appellants as under :
1. Jugli Ram and Sher Singh – u/s 307, 148, 447, 323 read with Section 149 IPC;
2. Prem Singh and Pappu – u/s 148, 307, 323, 447 IPC; and
3. Birbal Ram – u/s 147, 447, 307 read with Section 149, 323 read with 149 IPC.
7. The charges were explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and resultantly were committed to trial.
8. During the trial Hanuman Prasad; Likhma Ram and Jagdish (PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 respectively), who were injured
SupremeToday
The court highlighted that the presence of multiple eyewitnesses and the nature of the injuries inflicted are critical in determining the intent behind the actions of the accused, which can lead to a....
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....
Accused's claim of self-defence not properly considered by the trial court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and violation of fair trial principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
