2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14832

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Sunil Beniwal, JJ
Lakshman Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1041/2002

The court upheld conviction under Section 302/149 IPC where multiple accused, as an unlawful assembly, jointly assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons causing injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 326, 341 - Conviction under Sections 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147, 148, 326, 324 - Appeal against conviction - Dismissal of appeal - Conviction upheld.

(B) Evidence - Injured witness - Evidentiary value - Presence at place of occurrence cannot ordinarily be doubted - Testimony of injured witness stands on a higher pedestal - Minor discrepancies in ocular evidence do not affect core substratum of prosecution case. (Paras 27, 29)

(C) Evidence - Omission of names in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements - Lapses in investigation cannot enure to benefit of accused when ocular evidence cogent and trustworthy - Earliest version naming all accused and consistent trial testimony sufficient to establish involvement. (Para 33)

(D) Evidence - Defence of private defence - Absence of injuries on accused and no weapon found with complainant party - Plea of private defence not probabilized - Assault with sharp-edged weapons on vital parts indicates deliberate, concerted act, not sudden fight. (Paras 42, 43) (E) Evidence - Recovery of weapons - Absence of blood stains on recovered weapons does not override cogent ocular testimony - Recovery evidence merely corroborative. (Para 37)

Facts of the case:
The accused-appellants were convicted under Sections 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147, 148, 326 and 324 IPC for assaulting the deceased and the complainant with sharp-edged weapons and lathis, resulting in death of the deceased. The incident occurred on 02.10.1999 at about 6:00 P.M. near a mechanic shop. The complainant's brother had gone to get his bullock-cart repaired when the accused persons surrounded and assaulted him. The complainant, while trying to intervene, was also assaulted. The deceased succumbed to injuries, including blunt-force injuries to the chest that punctured the lungs and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The trial court convicted the accused, which was challenged in appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular evidence of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses was found cogent and trustworthy, corroborated by medical evidence showing sharp-edged and blunt weapon injuries. The court rejected the plea of private defence, noting absence of injuries on accused and no weapon with complainant party. Lapses in investigation regarding omission of names in certain statements were not fatal. The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was upheld.

Issues: 1. Whether the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was sustainable in the absence of clear evidence as to which accused caused the fatal blow? 2. Whether non-examination of independent witnesses and reliance on interested witnesses vitiated the conviction? 3. Whether omission of names of two accused in certain Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements created reasonable doubt? 4. Whether the accused acted in the exercise of right of private defence?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where multiple accused, as members of an unlawful assembly, jointly assault the deceased with deadly weapons, causing injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the common object under Section 149 IPC is established, and all members are liable under Section 302/149 IPC. The testimony of an injured witness is entitled to great weight, and minor discrepancies do not discredit the prosecution case. Omissions in investigation cannot override consistent ocular testimony. The plea of private defence is not available when accused have no injuries and the attack was with deadly weapons on vital parts. Result : Appeal dismissed.