SATPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 1. 8. 2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 341 IPC with one month simple imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC with six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further undergo two months imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that P. W. 1 Smt. Hema Devi wife of the deceased Roopa Ram submitted a typed report dated 8. 2. 2001 (Ex. P/1), to the S. H. O. Police Station, Raghunathgarh, District Sikar, on 9. 2. 2001 at 8. 50 a. m. with the averments that around 1. 30/2. 00 p. m. on February 2, 2001, her husband Roopa Ram went to the house of his ailing brother Sukhdeva. THE moment, Roopa Ram was to enter the house, accused appellant Satpal and his wife Banarasi Devi started beating him with lathi resulting into injuries on his head and legs, P. W. 2 Kana Ram and P. W. 8 Sheopal intervened and brought her husband to her house. As she being old, issue less and having no support, thought that his condition would be improved. But when his condition became serious, he was got admitted in Kalyan Hospital, Sikar, where doctor referred him to Jaipur and as such he was taken to Jaipur. This incident occurred due to previous enmity regarding land and property of the deceased Roopa Ram. Formal FIR No. 29/2001 (Ex. P. 2) was registered under Section 341 & 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Site was inspected and site-plan Ex. P/3 was dawn. In the meantime, Roopa Ram died in S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, at 1. 00 p. m. on 9. 2. 2001. THE offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. Ex. P. 4 Panchnama of the dead body of Roopa Ram was drawn. Autopsy of the dead body f the deceased was conducted by P. W. 15 Dr. P. C. Vyas, the then Medical Jurist, S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, who prepared Post Mortem Report Ex. P. 14. Following ante-mortem injuries were noted: 1. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm left knee cap with hard seat that has fallen at places leaving pinkish raw area; 2. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm Rt. knee cap with hard black seat that has fallen at places; 3. Diffuse swelling on parieto occipital region and rt. temporal region of the brownish red dark colour anterior haematoma present Rt. temporal and parieto occipital sub-scalp region dark red in colour. Skull healthy. THE Veins congested. This brown subdual temporal region. Brain congested, swelling found filled up. Two contusion 3 x 2 on rt. frontal and anterior contusion 4 x 3 cm left parietal region dark colour on the left occipital plate found contused and fractured with anterior haematoma. THE cause of death in the opinion of Dr. Vyas was coma brought as a result of ante-mortem head injury to skull, brain as mentioned and, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded. Accused appellant was arrested and at his instance, a lathi was recovered. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant only.

(3.) IN the present case the defence taken by the accused appellant was that there was a Neem Tree infront of the house of Sukhdev and Roopa Ram fell on the roots of the tree and thus might have received injuries and on account of enmity the appellant was falsely implicated after the death of Roopa Ram. P. W. 11 Dr. Sharma and P. W. 15 Dr. Vyas both admitted the suggestion that on account of fall on hard surface one may get such injuries. D. W. 1 Kana Ram deposed that he was well conversant with Roopa Ram and both of them often used to meet each other. On 3. 2. 2001 at about 9. 30 a. m. Kana Ram and Roopa Ram were sitting near a temple and during conversation Roopa Ram told him that he went to see his ailing brother and while coming back he fell down upon the roots of neem tree and got some minor injury on legs. On the next day Kana Ram went to see Roopa Ram and then he came to know that Roopa Ram was taken to Sikar Hospital. A neem tree has been shown near the place of occurrence in the site plan Ex. P. 3. P. W. 1 Hema Devi and P. W. 2 Kana Ram admitted in cross-examination that there is a neem tree infront of the house of Sukhdev and roots of that tree were coming out of ground surface. All the witnesses i. e. P. W. 1 Hema Devi, P. W. 3 Rameshwar, P. W. 4 Bhanwar Lal and P. W. 5 Ashok Kumar were given the suggestion that Roopa Ram entangled he roots of neem tree and fell down and thus received injuries. P. W. 1 Smt. Hema Devi first agreed to this suggestion but in next breath she stated that her husband received injuries with lathi. P. W. 3 Rameshwar denied this suggestion while P. W. 4 Bhanwar Lal and P. W. 5 Ashok Kumar pleaded ignorance about this suggestion. P. W. 6 Chothu Ram though declared hostile, categorically stated that there is a big neem tree infront of the house of Sukhdev and Roopa Ram had fallen upon the roots of that tree. Therefore, this possibility can not be ruled out that Roopa Ram fell upon the roots of the neem tree and received injuries. IN this context the statement of P. W. 1 Hema Devi is very significant. She stated that her husband was brought back by P. W. 2 Kana Ram and P. W. 8 Sheopal and both the witnesses narrated this incident to her. But it was no where stated by her that her husband told this incident to her. According to Hema Devi on a quarry her husband told ``mugksaus dgk Fkk fd ekewyh yx xbz gs] Bhd gks tk;sxka'' This version of Roopa Ram to his wife just after the incident goes a long way to show that the defence version may be probable. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that according to the statement of P. W. 1 Hema Devi, her husband Roopa Ram did not say a word to the effect that he was beaten by appellant Satpal and his wife as well as disclosed by P. W. 2 Kana Ram.