LAWS(RAJ)-1983-1-6

RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 10, 1983
RAM SWAROOP Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 144/1978 by five accused persons and Jail APPEAL No. 158/1978 by accused Ramswaroop are directed against their convictions and sentences in the following manner by an order of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 7th February, 1978; Ram Swaroop - Under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-; Under section 148 I. P. C. sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for \\ years; Under Section 149/324 I. P. C. sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year; Under Section 149/323 I. P. C. sentenced to rigorous imprison-men for two months; In default of payment of fine Ram Swaroop shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Ram Singh - Under sections 148 and 324 IPC, - sentenced to If years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. Under section 149/326 - sentenced to 3-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment; Under section 149/323 - sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Gazi, Haria and Gangadhar Under section 148 - sentenced to one year's rigorous imprison- - ment; Under section 149/326 IPC - sentenced to 3-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment; Under section 149/324 IPC - sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Under section 323 - sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that P. W. 1 Ram Hans lodged a first information report on 15th March, 1977 at 6. 30 p. m. in police station, Nagar, that on that very day at about 3. 30. p. m. his shepherds, Murli, Matoli, and Brijendra had taken their sheeps and she goats for grazing in the forest and while doing so passed through the vacant field of Girraj Gujar and then took their cattle in the field of Kishan and Kabool. At this time, Girraj came near these shepherds and hurled filthy abuses. Soon behind Girraj, Ramswaroop, Guile, Haria, Gazi, Bassey, Gunna, Roshan, Mitri, Ramsingh, Nannu, Jagga, Devi Ram and Gangadhar came armed with lathis and farsis and surrounded the above mentioned three shepherds and on account of previous enmity with an intention to kill the shepherd launched an attack on them. Ramswaroop gave a blow with lathi on the head of Murli on account of which he fell on Murli in order to save him and thereafter Ramsingh gave a blow by farsi on the head of Matoli. Gazi also gave blow by a lathi on Matoli. Brijendra Singh was beaten by Gangadhar and Haria by lathis. Other accused persons also inflicted blows by lathis. On hearing the noise Parshadi, Kishan, Banni, Ramkishore and Lila from the neighbouring fields reached on the spot, and saved the accused persons Brijendra ran inside the village and cried on which Guleh Ram, Ganga Bux and Madan also reached on the spot Murli and Matoli were taken to the hospital at Nagar. Murli died on account of the injuries. Dr. Satish Chandra P. W. 10 conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Murli on 16th March, 1977 and found the following injuries: 1. Swelling 5 cm X 5 cm. on right parietal region above the car slight hematoma. 2. Fracture of right parietal bone in two pieces 7 cm. long oblique. 3. Contusion of brain 4 cm. X 4 cm. on right parietal lobe superficial and in substances also. This area has multiple hemorrhagic patches. Cause of death was shock and lntracranial haemorrhage due to fracture of right parietal bone (skull)due to blow of blunt weapon.

(3.) MR. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case there was no right of private defence to person or property available to the accused persons and the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused persons. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that even if no intention of murder is held established against Ram Swaroop, it was a case at least of exceeding the right of private defence and the accused persons cannot be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.