STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15-7-1989, Magan P.W. 1 lodged a complaint with Police Station Pahada alleging that on the previous day at about 9 p.m. the respondent herein Dhool Singh had caused serious injuries with a sharp-edged weapon to Amar Singh son of Shankar Singh in a field known as Pahada which incident according to the complaint was noticed by Ramesh P.W. 1. The attack in question was alleged to be due to the dispute between the respondent herein and deceased-Amar Singh as to the right of the deceased to graze his cattle on the land belonging to the respondent. It is based on the said complaint that after investigation the Police of Pahada Police Station filed a charge-sheet against the respondent herein for offences punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. as also under Ss. 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Learned Sessions Judge-II, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1989 after trial found the respondent herein guilty of the offences charged against him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 for an offence under S. 302, I.P.C. in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He also found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under S. 4 read with S. 25 of the Arms Act and awarded punishment of 6 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction by the trial Court the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jodhpur. In the said appeal the High Court accepting the prosecution case as to the incident in question and the role of the respondent herein in causing death of the deceased came to the conclusion that the offence alleged against the respondent would not fall under S. 302, I.P.C. but would come under S. 304, Part II, I.P.C., hence modified the conviction to the one under S. 304, Part II, I.P.C. and held that the sentence already undergone would be sufficient. In regard to the offence under S. 4 read with S. 25 of the Indian Arms Act, it agreed with the findings of the trial Court and modified the said sentence also to the period already undergone but directed the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo one month imprisonment.

(3.) It is against the said judgment of the High Court modifying the conviction and sentence, the State of Rajasthan is in appeal before us.