Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2059
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Harsukh Ram S/o Budha Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1996
Decided on : 04-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
The court confirmed that a deliberate act causing severe injury, motivated by prior enmity, constitutes an attempt to murder under IPC Section 307, supported by substantial eyewitness and medical evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 323, 325 read with Section 34 - Conviction under multiple offences - The accused were convicted for attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt and simple hurt; the trial court imposed sentences with fines due to a tractor being used with intent to kill the injured - Eyewitness accounts and medical evidence corroborated that the tractor was deliberately driven over the injured, with the motive stemming from past enmity. (Paras 1-25)
(B) Appeals - The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence for two of the appellants to that already served. The serious nature of the crime was acknowledged but considered the time elapsed since the incident for adjusting penalties. (Paras 26-30)
Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 09.07.1995, where the accused drove a tractor over the complainant's uncle, resulting in severe injuries and setting off the legal proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Conviction under relevant sections was affirmed for all appellants, with the primary perpetrator’s sentence modified to two years.
Issues: The key issues included whether the act was an accident or intentional attempt to murder, and whether there was sufficient evidence supporting the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found substantial evidence indicating the deliberate act of running over the injured was motivated by past enmity, ruling that the intention to kill was evident owing to the severity and nature of the actions taken by the accused.
Result: The appeal was disposed of, affirming conviction but modifying sentences.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. witness testimonies support prosecution (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details of medical examination (Para 7) |
| 4. trial court's conviction reasoning (Para 9) |
| 5. appellants' arguments against conviction (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's analysis and assessment of evidence (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. ruling on conviction and legal precedents (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. final orders and sentencing details (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
Judgment :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred against the Judgment and sentences dated 25.03.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Court’) in Session case No.33/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted as under:-
| S.No. | Offence | Sentence | Fine |
| 1. | 307/34 IPC 5 | years Rigorous Imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof to further undergo six months’ R.I. |
| 2. | 325/34 IPC 2 | Years Rigorous Imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in default thereof to further undergo three months‘ R.I. |
| 3. | 323/34 IPC 6 | months Rigorous Imprisonment | To pay a fine of Rs.100/-; in default thereof to further undergo one month R.I. |
2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the complainant - Poora Ram (PW-8) submitted a written report (Exhibit-P/13) stating inter alia that on 09.07.1995, when he was returning to his village after selling milk and reached near the village tank, while Ramniwas S/o Sukha Ram Jat, his uncle Jhumar Ram were coming from the opposite side, one Massey tractor being driven by the accused Harsukh Ram with Peraj Ram and another person sitting in the tractor approached at a very high speed. Said Harsukh Ram with an intention to kill the injured Ram Niwas followed Ram Niwas and rode the tractor over him and thereafter, turned the tractor back and trampled the injured Ram Niwas with the wheels of the tractor, which caused multiple injuries on various parts of his body, including head and right leg resulting in profused bleeding.
3. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet implicating the appellants for various offences and the trial court; after framing charges commenced trial.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, the following persons appeared in the witness box:-
Navlaram Bheel (PW-1), Leelaram (PW-2), Dhagla Ram (PW-3), Lakha Ram (PW-4), Dr. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5), Dr. Jagdish Narayan Mathur (PW-6), Ganpat Singh (PW-7), Poora Ram (PW- 8), Harka Ram son of Poona Ram (PW-9), Ram Niwas (PW-10), Hanuman Ram (PW-11), Madho Singh (PW-12), Madan Ram (PW- 13), Harka Ram son of Tilok Ram (PW-14), Radha Kishan (PW-15), Sukha Ram (PW-16), Devkaran (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18).
5. Apart from the oral testimony, various documents were produced to prove the charges; the appellants, however, did not state anything substantial in their explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. On appraisal of the oral and ocular evidence, the trial court found that the appellants came with a common intention to murder the injured Ram Niwas (PW-10) and repeatedly rode the tractor over him, due to which, he suffered multiple injuries on his legs, hands and ribs out of which some were grave.
6. The injured (PW-10) and complainant (PW-8) appeared in the witness box and supported the prosecution version. Apart from PW-8 and PW-10, two other persons, namely Devkaran (PW- 17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18) were also examined, who too supported the prosecution version as eye-witness. Oral testimony of these witnesses remained uncontroverted despite attempts being made by the counsel for the accused persons during cross examinations of there witnesses.
7. The doctors (PW-5 and PW-6) appeared in the witness box and deposed that there were various injuries suffered by the injured. While exhibiting the X-ray report, Dr. Jagdish Narayan Mathur (PW-6) and Dr. M.L. Choudhary (PW-5) stated that as per X
