SANWATA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Merta dt. 26-6-79 whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently: - Sanwata Ram, Ramkaran, Jeetu Ram, Moolaram : U/s. 148 IPC and sentenced to 1 year's R. I. and u/s. 326 read with Sec. 149 IPC sentenced to 3 year's R. I. Deo Karan : U/s. 148 IPC and sentenced to 1 years' R. I. and u/s. 307 IPC. sentenced to 5 years' R I. and u/s. 326 IPC sentenced to 5 years' R. I.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that one Tejaram lodged a report with an allegation that in the night intervening 11th and 12. 07. 1978 while he and Dala Ram were sleeping in the Gadal. Five accused persons gave beating to Dalaram with axe and Pharsies, as a result of which Dala Ram had received injuries. On this police registered a case and started investigation. The injured was medically examined by Dr. Pratap Singh who found five injuries and prepared injury report Ex. P. 2. The accused appellants were arrested and at the instance of accused Pharsies and Kulharies were recovered. After usual investigation police submitted a challan before the learned Magistrate who committed the case for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. The accused appellants in their statement u/s. 313 denied the charges and in defence examined two witnesses. On conclusion of trial the learned Sessions Judge found the case well established against the accused persons and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence the accused appellants preferred this appeal.

(3.) SO far as accused Deo Karan is concerned, injured PW 6 Dala Ram has assigned only one injury to him and as per PW 4 Dr. Pratap Singh, none of the injury was found on the vital part of the body. The injured PW 6 Dala Ram was sleeping and the accused appellant Deo Karan could have inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body of injured as he had sufficient time if he had any intention to kill the injured. SO, the accused appellant Deo Karan could not be convicted u/sec. 307 and his conviction u/sec. 307 cannot be sustained. PW 4 Dr. Pratap Singh has stated that injury no. 1,2 and 4 were grievous and caused by sharp weapon. Injury no. 5 was simple in nature but. was caused by sharp weapon. Injury No. 5 was also simple in nature though it was caused by blunt weapon but there was no explanation whether any of the accused had inflicted injury by blunt side of the weapon. Even injury no. 1 was grievous in nature which was assigned to accused appellant Deo Karan and it was sufficient to hold liable for the offence, so his conviction u/sec. 326 IPC deserves to be maintained. Since the incident had taken place on l1/12 July, '78, in my opinion, looking to the peculiar circumstances of this" case and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Niab Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) wherein their lordships while maintaining conviction u/s. 326 IPC. held that it is not desirable to send the accused in jail after 13 years and the accused was sentenced to rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, it would not be proper to send the accused Deo Karan again behind the bars after a lapse of about 13 years and sentence already undergone by him will meet the ends of justice and to compensate the injured a fine of Rs. 2000/- is imposed. However, his conviction u/sec. 326 is maintained but conviction u/sec. 307 is set aside. The conviction of remaining accused appellants Sanwata Ram, Ramkaran, Jeetu Ram and Moola Ram is set aside.