Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
Unkar son of Kana (died) – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through P.P. - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 1989
Decided on : 02-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.C. Jain, Adv. with Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sain
For the Respondent: Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl.G.A.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of carefully evaluating witness testimonies and considering the nature of injuries and weapons used in determining criminal liability.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323, 324/34 of IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from the alleged theft of 'prasad' during Tejaji's Fair, leading to a violent confrontation resulting in injuries and fatalities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in witness testimonies and concluded that the fatal blow to the deceased could not be attributed to the accused Nathu. The court upheld the conviction of accused Laddu for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and set aside the conviction of accused Kalu for the same offence, instead convicting both Nathu and Kalu for the offence under Sections 323 and 324/34 of IPC, granting them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Issues: Discrepancies in witness testimonies, attribution of fatal blow, and evaluation of injuries and weapon used.
Ratio Decidendi: The court carefully evaluated witness testimonies and concluded that the fatal blow to the deceased could not be conclusively attributed to the accused Nathu. The court also considered the nature of injuries and the weapons used to determine the appropriate convictions.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction of accused Nathu for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and accused Kalu for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC, instead convicting both Nathu and Kalu for the offence under Sections 323 and 324/34 of IPC and granting them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The conviction and sentence of accused Laddu for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.
1. The accused appellants have preferred the instant appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.03.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Sessions Case No.50/1986 arising out of FIR No.97/1986, by which, he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:-
Unkar:-Under Section 302/34 IPC – Imprisonment for life and under Section 307/34 IPC – 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.
Nathu Lal:- Under Section 302/34 IPC – Imprisonment for life.
Kalu:- Under Section 307/34 IPC – 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of fine, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.
Laddu:- Under Section 307/34 IPC – 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment.
Rodu:- Under Section 307/34 IPC – 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months further rigorous imprisonment. Section 323 IPC – 1 month rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellants – Unkar and Rodu expired and the appeal stands abated qua appellants – Unkar and Rodu. The present appeal is being heard and decided with regard to appellants – Nathulal, Kalu and Laddu.
3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.09.1986 at 11:30 pm, complainant – Ramkaran son of Prabhu (PW-1) gave a parchabayan (Exhibit-P1) to the police. On basis of the said parchabayan, police registered FIR No.97/1986 (Exhibit- P42) on 16.09.1986 at 9:00 am at Police Station Uniara, District Tonk for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 324 of IPC against the accused appellants. The police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused appellants and other co-accused. The case was committed for trial and the Trial Court, after hearing the charge arguments, framed charges against the accused appellants for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307, 325, 323, 307/149, 325/149, 324/149 & 323/149 of IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 84 documents were exhibited. The explanation of the accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In defence, 5 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were exhibited.
4. As per the prosecution case, Tejaji’s Fair was ongoing in Village Banetha for last few days. It is the case of the prosecution that there was rumor going around that Pokhar (PW-9) has stolen the ‘prasad’ of Tejaji and this charge is said to be made by Rodu. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the night of 15.09.1986 at around 8:00 pm, 15 accused gathered at the village chowk armed with gandasis and lathis. Out of 15 accused persons, 8 were said to have been armed with gandasis and rests were having lathis. Rodu incited everyone to kill Srinarain and his family and all 15 persons mentioned in the FIR assaulted the members of the complainant party including deceased Srinarain. Out of 15 accused persons, learned Trial Court acquitted 3 accused; convicted 7 accused and gave them benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; accused - Nathu was convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC; accused- Unkar was convicted for offence under Section 302/34 & 307/34 of IPC; 2 accused appellants – Kalu & Laddu were convicted for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and; accused- Rodu was convicted for offence under Section 307/34 & 323 of IPC.
5. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants that the dispute took place on the spur of the moment. There are two injured persons on the side of accused i.e. Rodu and Gulaba, whose injury
