Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Saka Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 645/2000
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the Appellant; Mr. Salim Khan Mehar, P.P., for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonial and medical evidence, including the use of a sharp-edged weapon, previous animosity, and the intention to cause death in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC - [Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.] - [Sections 341, 324, 326, 307/34 IPC] - The court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellants for the charges of restraining, inflicting serious injury, and intending to cause death to the victim. The judgment was based on testimonial and medical evidence, including the use of a sharp-edged weapon, previous animosity, and the intention to cause death.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was apprehended, subdued, and seriously injured by the accused-appellants over a rental dispute. The trial court convicted the accused-appellants based on the victim's statement, testimonies of witnesses, and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused-appellants guilty of restraining and inflicting serious injury with the intention to cause death to the victim. The court also acquitted the third accused due to conflicting testimony and lack of involvement in the incident.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the injury, the intention of the accused, and whether the victim was restrained against his will.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on testimonial and medical evidence, the use of a sharp-edged weapon, previous animosity, and the intention to cause death in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused-appellants were directed to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 2.11.2000 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused appellants may kindly be acquitted of the charges levelled against them."
2. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of the record would reveal, are that on 05.11.1997, the statement of the victim Narayan Singh was recorded, wherein it was stated that on the said day at about 05:30 p.m., he was on his tractor along with Prem Singh and Pukhraj, and that Rata Ram and the present accused-appellants, Saka Ram and Varda Ram on their tractor approached and apprehended the victim, dragging him off his tractor onto the fields of one Pabu Singh. That Rata Ram and the accused-appellant Varda Ram subdued the victim, while the accused-appellant Saka Ram inflicted a serious injury on the victim’s head with a ’kulhaadi’ (Spade/Axe). It was also stated that Sakaram threatened the victim with his life. And that, when Prem Singh and other persons rushed to the spot, the accused persons fled the scene, after which he lost consciousness and fell to the ground. Thereafter, he was then taken by them on the tractor to village and then to the hospital in a jeep; which was later conveyed to him by Shaitan Singh, Jabarsingh and Lakhsingh. On the basis of such report, the police lodged an F.I.R. bearing No. 203/1997 on 05.11.1997 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 IPC against the aforementioned three accused persons.
2.1 After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against them for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307/34 IPC before the learned Court below; upon trial, the learned Court below, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2000, acquitted Rata Ram but convicted the present accused-appellants; Sakaram for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and Varda Ram for the offences under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC, and accordingly, awarded each of them a sentence of 6 months S.I. and 5 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default of which they were to undergo further 6 months R.I. respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the said judgment is bad in the eye of the law, as the alleged dispute between the accused-appellants and the victim was owing to payment of rent of a tractor, and that the rent was payable by the accused-appellant Varda Ram, who was the debtor, to the complainant, and that the version of the prosecution is called into question as it more likely that it was the complainant who instigated the accused-appellant which lead to the occurrence of the incident in question.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the accused-Rata Ram was not arrayed as an accused in the chargesheet filed with regard to the incident in question but the learned Court below took cognizance against him subsequently. That upon trial, the learned Court below acquitted accused-Rataram but erroneously proceeded to convict the present accused-appellants, which reflects over-implication and overreach at the instance of the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was ample time for the eye-witnesses to intervene and interfere in the incident in question, if the version of the prosecution is to be believed that the victim was dragged off his tractor and taken to a third person, Pabusingh’s fields, some forty feet away. That there was sufficient time to repeat the blow inflicted to the head of the victim, which was not done, thereby reflecting a lack of intention to cause death of the victim by the accused-appellants, and that therefore the charge against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable in the eye of the law.
6. On the other hand, the learned Pu
