RAM LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge, Dholpur by his judgment dated 31st July, 1989 has convicted and sentenced the above appellants as under: Ram Lakhan: U/s. 302, IPC- Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default three years rigorous imprisonment. Against this conviction and sentence all the appellants have preferred this appeal. The incident out of which this case arises occurred on 18th June, 1985 in village Singna ka Nagla, Majra Mamodhan at 5. 30 a.m. It may be mentioned here that deceased Kishan Singh, informant Chhiddu and accused Karan Singh and Ramji Lal are real brothers. Four sons of Karan Singh are also accused. Nemi Chandra is the son of informant Chhiddu and he is the injured person. An old dispute exists between the brothers and the sons of two of the brothers. All of them have their separate houses in a common Nohra. On the day in question i.e. on 18th June, 1985 deceased Kishan Singh was sweeping in his house when the accused persons came there and started putting Kattal (stone slabs) in front of the house of Kishan Singh. He asked the accused not to do so but then a quarrel started and the accused persons gave blows by lathies on the head of deceased Kishan Singh and PW/4 Nemi Chandra, who was also there was also beaten. This is the story in short. The report of the incident was registered on the basis of the Pcrcha Bayan of PW. 3 Chiddu, who was actually not an eye witness. He named as many as 11 persons in the Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 3 but later on gave an application Ex. D. 1 to the In-charge, Police station restricting his case to seven persons only. Gut of these seven persons, one Vinod was a child and he was tried by Children Court and this trial is restricted to the other six persons who alone were challenged by the police. After registering the case, investigation in the case was started. Site plan Ex. P. 4 was prepared and dead body of deceased Kishan Singh, who had died at the hospital was sent for post-mortem examination. According to the post mortem report, Ex. P. 6 the deceased had on lacerated wound U/s. 452, IPC - Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00/- (One Hundred Only). In default to under-go seven days imprisonment. Kailashi : U/s. 325, IPC Released under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000.00 to the injured Nemi Chand. U/s. 452, IPC Released under Sections 4/5 of Probation of Offenders Act and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 100.00 and Rs. 50/- as cost of proceedings. Karan Singh, Ramji Lal: U/s. 452, IPC Released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Sriniwas and Munna: U/s. 452, IPC Released under Section 4/5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- each with Rs. 50/- each as costs of proceedings. round in shape 1 in diameter, bone deep with depressed fracture on left parietal bone and besides this, he had swelling 5 x 4 on left from to parietal region. The cause of death in the opinion of the Doctor was due to external brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage due to fracture of parietal (left) bone. Nemi Chand was examined for his injuries and according to the report Ex. p. 22 the following injuries were found on him: 1. Lacerated wound; 5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x bone deep; on the scalp on the front to parietal region on the right side.

(2.) Black eye Rt. side which has occurred due to above injury. The injury No.1 was found to be grievous as there was a fracture of the frontal bone. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied upon the statement of PW. 4 Nemi Chand who was an eye witness and convicted the accused appellants as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has first of all contended that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to base the conviction of the appellants as the witnesses PW.1 Ganga Prasad and PW. 2 Kanhaiya who were named as eye witnesses in. the First Information Report have not supported the prosecution case and as such, there is no independent evidence in the case. As for PW. 4 Nemi Chandra it is contended that his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded on 30th June, 1985 i.e. 12 days after the incident and as such his presence becomes doubtful. While referring to the statement of PW. 3 Chhiddu and PW.4 Nemi Chandra it has been contended that in their earliest version they did not mention as to which of the accused inflicted blows on Kishan Singh and Nemi Chandra and now they have developed their story in order to attribute specific acts to certain accused. It is argued that it should not be believed that the actual blows were given by Ram Lakhan or Kailashi. In the alternative, the pica raised is that some arguments between the two sides resulted in minor pushing and hilling and in this, the deceased fell down on a stone and received injury which resulted in his death. The statement of PW. 6 Dr. Radhey Shyam Sharma has been referred in this connection wherein he has stated that injury No.2 could be due to a fall. Even if the theory of fall is not believed then it is contended that the incident occurred without premeditation upon a sudden quarrel between two sides and only one person inflicted a blow and the case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300, I.P.C. and as the accused appellant Ram Lakhan has already remained in custody for about 3-1/2 years, he should be released on the sentence already undergone.