RAMJAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this appeal, appellants Ramjas, Mange Ram and Amar Singh are challenging the judgment dated 31.10.1985 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 16/84, by which the appellants were convicted for committing offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC and were sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment of two months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 21st April, 1984 FIR Ex.P/1 was registered at Police Station Bhadra, District Sri Ganganagar against six persons out of which four were named and two not named. The said FIR was lodged by PW1 Het Ram s/o Bhoma Ram, in which it is stated that before 15 years from the date of occurrence accused appellant Ramjas entered in the house of Jeevan Ram with some evil intention and Gharsi Ram deceased gave beatings to Ramjas in those days due to that incident accused Ramjas used to keep enmity with Gharsi Ram. On the day of incident, the author of FIR Het Ram alongwith Gharsi Ram and Duli Chand went to the house of Hanuman Singh to attend some marriage party and after giving 'Ban' when they were returning to their village at about 9 PM and going to their house, the complainant Het Ram and Duli Chand stopped at the Water Works Office to inquire about the supply of water and deceased Gharsi Ram kept on moving towards the village and for this reason he was ahead of them about 40-50 pawandas. When deceased Gharsi Ram was ahead of the complainant and Duli Chand, they heard voice of Ghasri Ram saying "Mare Re, Mare Re' and thereupon they rushed to the place of occurrence where they saw that accused appellants Ramjas, Nathu Ram, Mange Ram, Amar Singh and two other persons were beating Gharsi Ram by lathies, when they tried to go near deceased Gharsi Ram for rescue, they were threatened by the accused party that if they would come near them, they would also be beaten. It is further stated by the complainant Het Ram that they rushed towards village and informed the father of deceased Bhoma Ram and Hardayal, Moola Ram, i Ramkishan, Rarokumar and thereafter returned back to the place of occurrence along with those persons. After reaching at the place of occurrence, water was poured on the mouth of deceased. At that time, Bhoma Ram asked Gharsi Ram as to what had happened with him and on that deceased told Bhoma Ram that he was beaten by Ramjas and his sons and two other persons. Upon aforesaid allegations made in the FIR, the Police Station Bhadra registered FIR at about 11 PM on 21.04.1984 and thereafter regular investigation was conducted and accused appellants were arrested on 25th April, 1984. In the investigation, it was found that Nathu Ram was falsely implicated so also two other unknown persons were not found to be indulged in the incident, therefore, challan was filed only against the present three appellants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the fact that as per Postmortem Report Fx.P/6 there is no serious injury upon vital part of the body of deceased. The Injury No.9 which is said to be inflicted upon leg of the deceased was found to be grievious. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW3 Dr. Brij Mohan, it is submitted that the said witness has deposed in his statement that except Injury No.9 which was on the leg of the deceased, all other injuries (bruises) were simple in nature, meaning thereby, there was no grievous injury upon any vital part of the body of the deceased and this fact itself is sufficient to show that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to kill the deceased. Further, it is submitted that out of 17 injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report, 15 are bruises and none of them were on vital part of the body, Injury No.1 which is a lacerated wound that too is simple in nature and injury No.9 is also a lacerated wound upon tibia and fibula of the deceased, therefore, even if it is presumed that occurrence took place then also on the basis of the nature of injuries found on the body of deceased, it can be gathered that there was no intention to kill the deceased and there was no intention behind the incident. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that accused appellants have been convicted while giving erroneous finding by the trial Court.