DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated March 19, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer whereby the appellants, five in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellant Deepak: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. U/s. 307 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 4/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants Asha, Vimla, Sushila and Jyoti: U/s. 323/34 IPC: Instead of awarding punishment at once granted benefit of probation under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to maintain good behaviour for one year. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story as unfolded during trial is as under:- On April 12, 2001 at 8. 30 PM a telephonic message was received at Police Station Ganj Ajmer about the quarrel between Harijans in Longiya Mohalla. Since the injured persons were removed to the Hospital, the police squad reached to the hospital where informant Kamla (Pw. 23) handed over a written report (Ex. P-25) to the police with the averments that appellant Deepak inflicted injuries on her person as well as on the person of Pankaj (Pravindra) as a result of which Pankaj died on the spot. Appellants Asha, Vimla, Sushila and Jyoti were also named as assailants. On that report a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 323, 509 and 392 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer. Charges under sections 302, 307, 323, 324 IPC 4/24 Arms Act were framed against Deepak and against other accused charge under section 323/34 was framed, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is well settled that for an offence to fall under the category of murder (i) there must be bodily injury (ii) the accused must have intended that particular injury and (iii) that bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature for cause death. Where a case falls under either of the following classes, it is within the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC: (1) When the case falls under one of the other clause of Section 300 IPC but is covered by the exceptions to that section. (2) Where the injury caused is not the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" but it is of a lower degree of likelihood generally spoken of as an injury "likely to cause death" and the case also does not fall under cl. (2) of Section 300.