SODAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated July 16, 1980 convicting .the accused-appellant Sodan Singh under section 323, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) On April 14, 1980, the deceased Mangu was sleeping on a cot in the Pol of his house. His sister Mst. Rukamani P.W. 2 and niece Chandi P.W. 3 were doing domestic work. The accused appellant Sodan Singh Rajput came there on the bicycle of Prabhu Khatik. Prabhu Khatik remained standing at the entrance of the PcI. There had been money dealings in between the deceased Mangu and the accused Sodan Singh. He asked Mangu for the discharge of his debt. An altercation followed in between them, soon they were embroiled in a scuffle, in the course, Sodan Singh gave a forceful push to the deceased Mangu and he fell down first on the cot and then on the ground. As a result thereof, he received injuries and the same day he died. On post mortem examination of his dead body, it was revealed that his spleen was highly enlarged and it was ruptured in the said occurrence and as a result thereof he died. Four external ante mortem injuries were noted on his left arm, lateral part of his knee, left leg and left hip. Report Ex.-P/4 was lodged the same day by one Prema. The Police registered a case under section 302, I.P.C. and commenced investigation. The next day, the accused was arrested. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused- appellant under section 302, I.P.C. He was tried by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced and proved nine documents. In his statements recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant admits that he had lent money to the deceased Mangu, Rs. 311/were paid on his behalf, receipt EX.-2 was executed and issued by him, on the day of occurrence, he went to the house of the deceased Mangu, in the course of scuffle which followed the altercation in between them, he pushed the deceased Mangu and as a result thereof Mangu fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground. He has further stated that the deceased Mangu himself called him to come inside the Pol, thereafter, Mangu and his sister started rallying at him and got him embroiled in the scuffle, thereafter, he came out from the Pol. He examined Harlal D.W.-1 in his defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned AddI. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant under section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default ofpayment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that a part of the statement of the accused-appellant cannot be read in evidence. He further contends that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and it is well-proved from it that the deceased himself invited the accused-appellant to come inside the PcI and he was beaten there by the deceased Mangu and his sister Rukamani. He further contends that in exercise of the right of private defence, he pushed aside the deceased Mangu and as a result thereof he fell down, first on the cot and then on the ground, he (accused) was not aware that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and as such no offence is made out against him. He also contends that it is clear from the judgment dated 16-07-1991 of the trial Court that at the time the accused-appellant was 70 years old, now he is over 80 years old, he has already been in police and judicial custody for more than one month and eight days and, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant deserves to be released on the sentence already undergone and in the alternative, he may be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act as no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused-appellant to prison after more than eleven years of the occurrence.