KAILASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case reveals indecent behaviour of the members of General Caste who did not like Marriage procession on mare of the bride grooms belonging to Scheduled Caste. The marriage procession was therefore deadly opposed and the police had to intervene. THIS incident resulted in death of Rajpal Singh. The appellants, six in number, along with co-accused Dayal Chand, Khanga Ram, Prakash, Leela Ram and Krishna were indicated for the murder of Rajpal Singh before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 33/1999. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated April 30, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Kailash: U/s. 302 IPC : To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, n default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 341 IPC : To suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer five days simple imprisonment. Ramavtar, Sardara, Balbir, Rajendra and Ghuda Ram : U/s. 302/149 IPC : Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment. U/s. 325/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 323/149 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 341 IPC : Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to further suffer five days simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Co-accused Khanga Ram, Prakash, Leela Ram, Dayal Chand and Krishna were however acquitted of the charges under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 341 IPC.

(2.) IT is prosecution case that a written report (Ex. P-4) was lodged on June 14, 1999 with the Police Station Bansoor by informant Gopi Singh (Pw. 1) to the effect that on the said day around 8. 30 p. m. when the informant together with Rajpal (now deceased) were coming back to their house after purchasing some articles, they were belaboured on the way by Kailash, Ramavtar, Balbir, Rajendra, Sardar, Ratti Ram, Ghuda, Dayala and Krishna. Pharsi-blow was inflicted by Kailash on the head of Rajpal, whereas Ghuda gave lathi-blow on the head of Gopi Singh. When Girvar Singh, Laxman Singh, Popraj Singh Billu Singh intervened Sardara gave lathi blow on the hand of Girvar. Ramavtar, Balbir and Popraj caused injuries on the person of Laxman and Ratti Ram. Police Station Bansoor on the basis of said report registered a case under sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 and 336 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation Rajpal succumbed to his injuries and Section 302 IPC came to be added. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded, accused were arrested, autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charges under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 307/149 and 341 IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence and stated that the complainant party intervened in the marriage procession of Nandlal and Sita Ram, who could sit on the mare only under the police protection. Complainant party did not like procession of Nand Lal and Sita Ram on the mare and because of this complainant party entered their house and beat them. Cross case therefore was registered against the complainant party. Four witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. the other co-accused were however acquitted.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in fact the incident occurred in the house of co-accused Leela Ram. Prakash Singh (Pw. 12) categorically deposed in his cross- examination that incident occurred in the house Leela Ram. Prakash Singh further stated that Rajpal Singh was initially lying in front of the house of Basant Kumar. Thereafter he was lifted and carried away from that place. Prakash Singh also admitted that doors and windows of the house of Leela Ram and cot lying there were broken and there were many foot marks on the galary. Khurpi, Bakhri and Dantli etc. were also lying there. Even according to site plan (Ex. P-3) the incident occurred at the place, which was in front of the house of co-accused Leela Ram. IT is further canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the statement of Banshidhar SHO (Pw. 17) cross case was registered against the complainant party and accused Prabhati, Laxmi, Saroj, Jai Singh and Sardara Ram sustained injuries. Banshidhar, SHO further stated that complainant party had given beating to the accused and the incident occurred in the galary and chowk. Learned counsel fro the appellants vehemently urged that the only injury attributed to Kailash was caused in exercise of right of private defence since the complainant party inflicted blow on the forehead of his mother Laxmi.