Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 774
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA & KHEM CHAND SHARMA, JJ.
Sohan Lal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 1998
Decided On : September 10, 2003
N.A. Naqvi, Mukesh Poonia & Dilip Sinsinwar, for Appellants S.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor for State P.K. Sharma, for Complainant
Headnote:(a) Penal Code, Sec. 149 – Culpability u/Sec. 149 – It does not create new offence but deals with vicarious liability of the members of unlawful assembly for the act done in prosecution of common object – Held – Where there is a spontaneous fight between two parties each individual is responsible for the injuries he caused – Provisions of Sec. 149 or 148 or 147 I.P.C. are not attracted. (Paras 11 & 12)(b) Penal Code, Sec. 447 – Criminal Trespass – Incident took place on the land belonged to Forest Department – Held – It cannot be taken as proved that the complainant party was in possession over it. (Para 13)(c) Penal Code, Sec. 302/149, 447, 147 etc. – Acquittal – Held – Ocular allegation not corroborated by medical evidence – Mere presence at the time of incident cannot held vicariously liable. (Para 15)
There could be no question of invoking the aid of Section 149 IPC for the purpose of imposing constructive criminal liability. In the case on hand as earlier noticed, the Investigating Officer himself admitted that there was a free fight between the parties, therefore provisions contained in Sections 149 or 148 or 147 IPC are not attracted and each accused can be held responsible for his individual act. (Para 12)
Charge under Section 447 IPC is also not established against the accused as the incident had taken place on the land belonged to Forest Department and it could not be proved that the complainant party was in possession over it. (Para 13)
Criminal revision preferred by informant Raghuveer Singh against the judgment of acquittal of Mahaboob and Taiyab Khan is concerned, we find that ocular allegation against them have not been corroborated by medical evidence. Even if it is found that they were present at the time of incident, they can not be held vicariously liable. We are of the view that they were rightly acquitted. (Para 15)
Kallu:
U/s. 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 447 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 148 IPC To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC To suffer Two Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 324/149 IPC To suffer One and a half Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer Three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC To suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment.
Sohan Lal, Mauj Khan & Asuddin:
U/s. 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 447 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 148 IPC To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC To suffer Two Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 324 IPC To suffer One and a half Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer Three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC To suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment.
Kamruddin & Rahmat Khan:
U/s. 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 447 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 148 IPC To suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 325 IPC To suffer Two Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 324/149 IPC To suffer One and a half Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer Three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC To suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment.
Rahmuddin:
U/s. 302/149 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 447 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 147 IPC To suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
U/s. 325/149 IPC To suffer Two Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 324/149 IPC To suffer One and a half Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer Three Months Simple Imprisonment.
U/s. 323/149 IPC To suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Other accused Mahboob and Taiyab Khan were however acquitted.
(2). Seven convicted appellants have assailed the impugned judgment by filing DB Criminal Appeal (No. 796/1998), whereas the complainant Raghuveer Singh has assailed the judgment of acquittal of accused Mahabood and Taiyab Khan by filing the DB Criminal Revision Petition (No. 188/1999). During the pendency of the appeal appellant Rahmat Khan died and proceedings against him stood dropped.
(3). The prosecution story is woven like this:-Informant Raghuveer Singh (PW.1) submitted a written report on August 7, 1997 at 5.30 PM to the SHO Police Station Malakhera Alwar stating therein that Prabhu Koli and his brothers mortgaged their agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 250 measuring 5 bighas to him. On August 7, 1997 around 2.00 PM when the informant along with Chhote Lal, Rajendra, Munshi and Girdhari were in the process of ploughing the said land. Kallu, Kamru, Taiyab and Rehmu came over their on two tractors and started ploughing the land. When the informant protested they made attempt run him over by the tractor. In the meanwhile Asuddin, Mahboo
