IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, FARJAND ALI, JJ.
Bhagirath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 139, 283 of 1992, 221 of 1994
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Criminal Trespass - Section 304 Part I, Section 325, Section 323, Section 148, Section 447 IPC - The accused were convicted for criminal trespass, assault, and causing death. The court reversed the trial court's decision to tone down the offence and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC. The accused were convicted for both these offences and sentenced to Life Imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute between the accused and the complainant party. The accused trespassed into the complainant's property, brutally assaulted an elderly couple, causing the death of the husband and severe injuries to the wife. The trial court toned down the offence under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of criminal trespass, assault, and causing death. It reversed the trial court's decision and convicted the accused for both these offences. The accused were sentenced to Life Imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was the reversal of the trial court's decision and the conviction of the accused for criminal trespass, assault, and causing death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accused trespassed into the complainant's property, brutally assaulted the victims, and caused the death of the husband. The medical evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries inflicted were sufficient to cause death. The trial court's decision to tone down the offence and acquit the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC was deemed perverse and illegal.
Final Decision: The court convicted the accused for criminal trespass, assault, and causing death, and sentenced them to Life Imprisonment and Rigorous Imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
MEHTA, J.
1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 25.03.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.33/1990, whereby accused Mukan Singh, Nirana Ram, Shankar Lal, Girdhari Singh, Shyamla, Omla and Bhagirath have been convicted and sentenced as below :-
| Offence for which convicted | Sentence and fine awarded |
| Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC | Five years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- |
| Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC | One year’s rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- |
| Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC | Six months’ rigorous imprisonment |
| Section 148 IPC | One year’s rigorous imprisonment |
| Section 447 IPC | Three months’ rigorous imprisonment |
2. It is relevant to note here that the accused appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. However, the trial court while toning down the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, convicted the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and acquitted them from the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
3. While the accused persons have approached this court by way of D.B. Criminal Appeal No.139/1992 filed under Section 374 (2) CrPC for challenging their conviction and sentences awarded to them by the trial court, the State of Rajasthan has filed Criminal Appeal No.221/1994 under Section 378 (i) & (iii) CrPC for assailing acquittal of the accused from the charges punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.283/1992 under Section 377 CrPC seeking enhancement of sentences awarded to the accused.
4. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow :-
5. Radhakishan (P.W.1) lodged an oral report at the Police Station Sardar Shahar on 03.11.1989 at about 05.00 p.m. alleging inter alia that their agricultural land was located in the Village Dega Ki rohi, where his parents had constructed a hut and used to reside therein. They had sown crops in the field. In the afternoon of 03.11.1989 at about 02.30 p.m., the first informant purchased some household articles for his parents and reached their dwelling and there, he saw the dead body of his father Shri Gorakh Singh lying in the adjoining field of Bhanwar Singh. His mother Smt. Bhanwari was also lying nearby in injured condition. The neighbouring field owners Aadu Ram and Naan Ji, residents of Patalisar, were sitting nearby. He asked his mother Bhanwari as to what happened, on which she told that she and his father Gorakh Singh were lying down inside the hut talking to each other, when suddenly, in the middle of the night, at about 12.00-01.00 o’clock, Mukand Singh son of Bakhtawar singh, Bhagirath, Shankar Lal, Omla, Shyamla sons of Mukand Singh, Girdhari Singh son of Hadman Singh and Nirana Ram son of Nathi Ram, all residents of Village Patalisar, Sardar Shahar came there. Bhagirath was having an iron Jei, while the others were having lathis in hand. No sooner these accused entered into their hut, Bhagirath shouted that they should be killed and thus, the land would be released. Saying so, Bhagirath gave a blow of iron pronged jei on the hand of her husband Gorakh Singh. Nirana Ram gave a blow of lathi on her face. Others started hitting Shri Gorakh Singh by Jeis, lathis, etc. Both were dragged out and indiscriminately assaulted in front of the hut. Bhagirath gave a Jei blow, fracturing Smt. Bhanwari’s hand. Shri Gorakh Singh was beaten by Mukan Singh, Bhagirath, Girdhari, Narayan, Omla, Shyamla and Shankar by lathis, Jeis etc. Feeling confident that both the victims had died, they lifted and threw them nearby the
Sanjeev & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2022) 6 SCC 294]
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted criminal trespass, assault, and causing death, and the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for unimpeachable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, especially in cases where two views are possible based on the evidence a....
The court established that actions taken in the heat of passion without premeditation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide rather than murder.
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insuffic....
For a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, which involves establishing the causal connection to the accused, a requirement not met in th....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, emphasizing the need for proportional sentencing based on the gravity of the offense and the evidence presented.
A conviction for murder is upheld when the prosecution establishes intentional lethal force and the defense fails to demonstrate any mitigating statutory exceptions, such as grave and sudden provocat....
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.