GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereinafter described as `accused') were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 18/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 19, 2002 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- Accused Devalal: U/s. 302 IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Months Imprisonment. U/s. 341 IPC: To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days. Accused Gopal: U/s 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Months Imprisonment. U/s 341 IPC: To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days. THE substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) A written report (Ex. P-9) was submitted on November 14, 2000 at the Police Station Tonk by Ladu (PW. 7) with the averments that on the preceding day i. e. , November 13, 2000 around 8. 00 PM, the informant's brother Ram Narain (now deceased) had gone to the well, as on the said day it was their turn to use the well. For the purpose of using the well Ram Narain got the engine, fitted with the well, halted. While Ram Narain was coming back, the accused inflicted lathi blows on the person of Ram Narain, who died after some time. The Police Station Tonk registered a case under Sections 341, 302 and 341 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast/track Tonk. Charge under Sections 341 and 302 IPC was framed against the accused Devalal and against Gopal under Sections 341 and 302/34 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence and stated that the deceased was lying dead on the field. In defence they exhibited the revenue record and examined three witnesses. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above.

(3.) HAVING closely scanned the prosecution evidence we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused Gopal under sections 302/34 and 341 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. In regard to accused Devalal we find that he is alleged to have inflicted single blow and fled away. He could have repeated the infliction of blows but he did not. Neither did he act in a cruel manner nor took undue advantage of the situation. Since the element of intention is missing it can safely be inferred that the accused Devalal had knowledge that the injury which he was going to inflict could likely to cause death. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, we hold that the case against accused Devalal does not travel beyond section 304 Part II IPC.