CHIMANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Chiman Lal has been convicted under sections 304 Part II. 452 and 323/34. Indian Penal Code. The other accused Nihala has been convicted under sections 323 and 452, Indian Penal Code. Chimanlal has been sentenced to undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under the first count, to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under the second count and three months' rigorous imprisonment under the last count; in default of payment of fine under the first count he has further to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. His sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. ACCUSED Nihala has been sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment under section 323, Indian Penal Code, and three years, rigorous imprisonment under section 452, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE marriage party of one Jagdish had gone to village Malhot. Rajender son of Shrimati Buli deceased and Dayachand (P. W. 4) bad also gone in the marriage party. A theft of Rs. 250/- belonging to one Meechand took place and a charge was levelled on Rajender son of Smt. Buli that he had committed the theft. Later on it was found to be false and some other person of the village was found responsible for having committed the aforesaid theft. THE marriage party returned to village Dhanke. THE house of Shrimati Buli deceased and accused Mahilal are nearby. Shrimati Buli, mother of Rajender, on whom a false charge of theft was levelled started abusing Mahilal and others for having unnecessarily brought to disgrace his son Rajender by levelling a false charge against him. She was doing so for the last few days and on July 1, 1974 at about 8 30p. m. when Shrimati Buli was hurling abuses at Mahilal and others, it is alleged that the two accused appellants along with others armed with 'lathis' committed house trespass after having made preparation to cause hurt and cause injuries to Shrimati Buli, accused appellant Chimanlal is said to have given a Lathi blow at her head, When the others intervened, they too were beaten Shrimati Buli was taken to the hospital where she died. Dr. Ramlal Goyal (P. W 6), who was posted as Medical Jurist, Civil Hospital Ganganagar on July 1, 1974 first examined Shrimati Buli and found a single injury on her head, but later on Shrimati Buli died in the hospital and on July 2, 1974 Dr. Goyal conducted autopsy on her dead body. It was noticed that there was a lacerated wound 2-1/2"x l-l/3"x 8" on the posterior part of the left parietal legion. It was caused by a blunt weapon and was ante-mortem in nature. On opening the skull it was found that there was a linear fracture on the left parietal bone and second fracture connecting with fracture No. 1 and a transverse linear crack joining fractures Nos. 1 and 2 In the opinion of the doctor Shrimati Buli died of head injury causing compression of brain and the death was due to coma.

(3.) SO far as charge under section 323, Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is clear evidence that accused Chimanlal did not give beating to any-body else except Shrimati Buli. It has been held above that it becomes doubtful that Chimanlal gave a lathi-blow to Shrimati Buli. Thus accused Chimanlal cannot be held responsible even under section 323, Indian Penal Code. I will later on deal with the charge under section 452, Indian Penal Code while dealing with similar charge against accused Nihala. Though there is evidence that Nihala also gave a lathi-blow to other injured persons but in the circumstances which shall be presently stated the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. Accused Chimanlal, as appears from the statement of Dr. Goyal (P. W. 6), received as many as five injuries. The first abrasion is on the left thumb, second lacerated wound is on the left parietal region, third abrasion on the left knee, fourth bruise on the left) eye-brow and the last and the fifth bruise on the left side of chest. Even the witnesses of the prosecution have admitted that there were injuries on the person of Chimanlal. Ramanand (PW 1) states that at the time of occurrence, Chimanlal also received an injury on his head, but he cannot say as to how and in what manner he received the injury. He also admits that Chimanlal was medically examined. The case of the prosecution is that Shrimati Buli was abusing the accused persons for last few days and on the day of occurrence too she was abusing. The accused went to her to request her not to do so. When she went inside the house the accused persons also chased her. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused person after having made preparations so cause hurt committed house trespass. The accused Chiman Lal also received five injuries. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and two independent witnesses Ganeshi and Gulab Singh have not been examined. Under the circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful that the occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. Because the accused persons only went to pacify Shrimati Buli who was hurling abuses at them, it cannot be said that they went to the house of Shrimati Buli after having made preparations to cause hurt, and when she entered the house, the accused persons also chased her and as such in my opinion no case under section 452, Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is made out.