MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS jail appeal by Mani Ram, Sajjan Singh and Prem Singh is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 18th March, 1974, by which all the three appellants were convicted under Sections 307/34 and 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months The substantive sentences of imprisonment on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants was as follows: Sadhu Ram was an employee of Tirath Singh, mechanic, resident of Ganganagar. He used to drive Ambassador Car No. RSK 1973 belonging to his employer Tirath Singh On August 24, 1972 at about 5 p. m. the three appellants along with Tarsem Singh, (who has been acquitted by the trial Judge of the charges framed against him) came to the shop of Tirath Singh and hired his Ambassador car on a fare of Rs. 80/ -, for going to village Budhajohar from Ganganagar. The appellants and their companion boarded the Ambassador car driven by Sadhu Singh at 6 p. m. and took it to Jhotawali village instead of Budhajohar Sadhu Ram readied Jhotawali as about 7.15 p. m. and stayed at the house of Mani Ram's brother -in -law Chothu Ram. The appellants and their companion took liquor at the house of Chothu Ram and thereafter ate food. The appellants offered wine to Sadhu Ram also but he refused to drink it. From Jhotawali the appellants and their companion started for Ganganagar for going in the car driven by Sadhu Ram At about 8 or 9 p. m. when Sadhuram was driving the car on the road at some distance from Kikarwali, the brakes of the car were jammed Sadhu Ram put the brakes in order and started the car for moving onwards. Thereupon, the appellants asked Sadhu Ram to bring the car to a halt as there was some defect in its rear wheel. Sadhu Ram stopped the car, got down from the car and began to inspect the rear wheel Meanwhile the three appellants and their companion came out of the car and struck two or three blows in quick succession upon Sadhu Rain's neck with a sharp -edged weapon. As a result of the blow, Sadhu Ram fell down and blood began to ooze out of his wounds. Then he was dragged by all the four miscreants and taken towards sand -dunes which lay at some distance from the car. He was left alone near a sand -dune by the appellants and their companions who then drove away the car. After the miscreants had disappeared from the place of occurrence, Sadhu Ram got -up and with great difficulty came to the road. After some time, he requested the driver of a Military truck to take him to hospital. The Military truck was coming from the side of Padampur and its driver acceded to his request. Sadhu Ram was thereafter taken to Raisinghnagar hospital where his statement was recorded by the Station House Officer The statement was treated as a first information report and on its basis the Station House Officer registered a criminal case Under Section 307, 394 and 397, I.P.C. After registering the case, the Station House Officer took -up the usual investigation and searched for the car. He found the car lying, on Padampur Ganganagar road at a distance of about two miles from Padampur. The car was seized vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 2. Sadhu Ram was medically examined as to his injuries. Dr. S.M. Sharma, Incharge, Primary Health Centre Raisinghnagar. upon medical examination of Sadhu Ram's body found the following injuries:

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. B. Advani, Amicus -Curiae for the appellants and Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon careful review of the entire evidence on the record, I am satisfied that the three appellants were rightly convicted of the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. There is reliable evidence of Sadhu Ram on the record to prove that a murderous assault was made upon him by the three appellant when he was inspecting the rear wheel of his Ambassador car, of course, there was no other person at or near the place of occurrence who could see the appellants committing the offence of attempt to murder. The incident took place on the lonely road and Sadhu Ram injured only could say what had happened to him. He stated, in clear and definite terms, that the three appellants got down from the car and caused injuries to his person in quick succession with a sharp -edged weapon, when he was checking the rear wheel of his car at the instants of the appellants The statement of Sadhu Ram regarding the injury sustained by him find) corroboration from the testimony of Dr. S.M. Sharma who found as many as seven incised wounds on his neck. Out of these wounds one was 12 x 3 x 2 cm. deep on the, right side of his neck extending from right cheek just below the mastoid process of right side. As a result of this injury sternomastoid muscle had been cut away completely This injury was grievous in nature in the opinion of the Doctor. It is no doubt true that Sadhu Ram could not see which of the appellants had caused simple as well as grievous injures to him, but he definitely staled that all the three appellants had come out of the car and assaulted him. It is further proved from his evidence that when he was taking the appellants in his car to Ganganagar from Jhotawali village, he was asked by them to stop the car as, according to them, the rear wheel of the car was rattling. At their request Sadhu Ham brought the car to a halt and got down to see why the rear wheel was rattling. When he was trying to find out whether there was any defect in the wheel, he was assaulted and injured by the three appellants. These circumstances clearly indicate that the injuries were caused to the body of Sadhu Ram by all or any appellant in furtherance of the common intention of all of them to kill him and to take away the car. The legal position that emerges is that each of the appellants must be held to have committed the entire criminal act and so the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is made out in law against all the appellants. Mr. B. Advani Amicus Curiae for the appellant contended before me that the intention of the appellants to inflict injuries sufficient enough to cause death of Sadhu Ram is not established by the prosecution and so it cannot be said that the appellants made an attempt to kill Sadhu Ram. The above contention has no force, because Dr. S.M. Sharma PW 7 clearly stated in his cross -examination that the injured was in a pecurious condition it the time when his statement was recorded by the Station (SIC) Officer. It is further proved by his evidence that when Sadhu Ram injured was brought to the dispensary, he was in a semi conscious condition and he regained consciousness on the following day in the morning when a pathodine injection was given to him Hence it is established from the nature of the injuries that the intention of the appellants was to kill Sidiu Ram, because, as many as seven injuries were inflicted on the vital part of his body, i. e. neck with a sharp edged weapon Apart from this, it may be observed that in order to secure conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. all that is material is the intention or the knowledge of the doer of the act and not the consequences that flow from the actual act done. It is immaterial whether any injury was caused to the person whose murder was attempted. The act contemplated under Section 307, I.P.C. is an act which is done with an intention or knowledge of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of some unforeseen cause or intervening factor that operates independently of the door of the act If injuries are caused, the person doing the act with the intention of knowledge of doing the act is liable to enhanced punishment under the latter part of Section 307, I.P.C. Hence, the consequence of the actual act done is relevant only for the purpose of deciding the quantum of sentence to be awarded