The court established that youth and lack of premeditation are significant mitigating factors in sentencing, justifying a modification of the punishment while affirming the conviction under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused–appellants, calling into question the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.1993 and the consequent order of sentence dated 02.09.1993, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.94/1990 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case unfolds from an allegation that the accused–appellants were responsible for causing the death of one Jorji and for inflicting injuries upon Hom Singh, allegedly by pelting stones. The edifice of the prosecution rests substantially upon the testimony of the injured eyewitness Hom Singh, who was examined during trial as PW-1.

2.1. As per the narrative propounded by the prosecution, on the fateful day of the occurrence, Hom Singh along with his family members was engaged in agricultural operations in their field. At that juncture, the accused persons, accompanied by Kalu and Kamli, allegedly arrived at the place of cultivation, purportedly armed with deadly weapons, and objected to the ongoing agricultural activity, reprimanding and scolding the complainant party. Owing to the altercation, Hom Singh retreated towards his house; however, the accused are alleged to have pursued him.

2.2. It is further alleged that accused Punjula, wielding a stone, struck Hom Singh from behind, resulting in injury to his leg, and thereafter hurled another stone which landed on the lumbar region of his father, Jorji. The situation escalated momentarily but was subsequently defused owing to the intervention of nearby villagers, who attempted to pacify the parties and restore order. Thereafter, both injured persons were shifted to the hospital for medical treatment.

2.3. Tragically, during the intervening night of the second day of treatment, Jorji succumbed to the injuries sustained, culminating in the registration of the case against the accused for causing grievous injury to Hom Singh and for the homicidal death of Jorji. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution includes the injury report (Exhibit P-9) of Hom Singh, which records a lacerated wound on the inner aspect of the right leg, opined to be grievous in nature. The post-mortem report (Exhibit P-8) pertaining to the deceased Jorji enumerates three injuries, of which two were minor abrasions on non-vital parts of the body. However, Injury No.1, a lacerated wound on the skull, proved fatal, as it resulted in a fracture of the right parietal bone, leading to his eventual demise.

2.4 In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case and tendered various documentary exhibits into evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused–appellants. The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness nor was any documentary evidence adduced on its behalf.

2.5 Upon a cumulative appreciation of the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence brought on record, the learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.