SHREE RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that an incident took place on 24th November, 1975 at 7.00 a.m. of which the report was lodged on 28 -11 -1975 at 8.30 a.m. by Munshilal to the effect that his son Veer Singh, his father Chandu and his brother -in -law Dharamveer had come to village Gothra. On that day accused persons Ram Chander, Sri Ram, Chiranji, Kishan, Dharmpal, Mst. Narayni, Mst. Saraswati and Mst. Naval Kaur armed with various weapons attacked them, out of these persons Ram Chander and Sri Ram were armed with Farsi while Chiranji had Lathi and so also others. It is mentioned that those persons caused injuries on the persons of Veer Singh and Dharamveer. The report was lodged on 28th November, 1975 on which the case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 447 IPC was registered. It is pertinent to mention here that before lodging this report the complainant party got the injured medically examined as a private case, obtained the reports and submitted then along with the First Information Report. The Police after completing the necessary investigation submitted a charg: -sheet against eight persons. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. Accused filed a written submission and claimed the right of private defence of person and property both. They examined two witnesses in their defence also.

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that before the judgment could be delivered in the case, even prior the final arguments, the parties filed written compromise which was taken on record on 23rd August, 1978. There after the arguments of the case were heard and the learned Judge after disbelieving part of the evidence, acquitted Dharampal, Mst. Naval Kaur, Mst. Narayni and Mst. Saraswati of all the offences. He also held that the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC are not made out in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, acquitted them all of those charges. He however, convicted the appellant Sree Ram for substantive offence under Section 307 and sentenced him to 26 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/ - and rest of the three persons viz. Kishan, Ramchandra and Chiranji were convicted under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 and sentenced them to the same imprisonment as Sri Ram, in default of payment of fine each of the accused was to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. It is against this conviction and sentence that the appellant filed an appeal before this court.

(3.) IN this appeal, it is to be seen whether Section 307 IPC is at all made out in the circumstances of the case. This injured Dharamveer, who had sustained the grevious Injury by sharp edged weapon on his head is an incised wound 4 c.m. X 3 -1/2 c.m. on the left parietal region with a fissured fracture of left parietal bone, the question is whether accused Sri Ram who has been charged and convicted for the subtantive offence under Section 307, IPC has inflicted this injury. So far as the First Information Rreport is concerned, the prosecution case was that Ram Chander and Sri Chand both were armed with Farsi with which they caused injuries, however, they are silent about the specific injury. When the evidence was recorded in court the injured Dharam Veer PW 2 stated that Ram Chander gave him Farsi blow on his head receiving which he fell down and there after he does not know as to what happened. As against this PW 1 Munshilal in his statement stated that both Shri Ram and Ram Chander inflicted blows by Farsi. He further stated, when cross -examined, that who inflicted the blow on Dharamveer by Farsi whether Ram Chander or Shri Ram, he cannot say definitely, PW 3 Veer Singh has further stated that Sri Ram inflicted a Farsi blow on his brother -in -law Dharamveer's head. He was confronted with the police statement Ex. D 1 which he could nor properly explain. Manoharlal PW 5 also made a similar statement that Shree Ram had inflicted the injury. This witness also in cross -examination gave a different version. He rather also accepted that it was the accused person who had inflicted injuries by Lathi on the person of Shree Ram. There are precisely important witnesses inter alia others. It is borne out from the aforesaid statement that Dharamveer who sustained the injury himself does not implicate accused Sreeram for the injuries he sustained on the head which is an injury for which Section 307 IPC has been attracted, and he rather attributes his injury to Ram Chander and to this extent this is corroborated by the version of Munshilal, who is author of the First Information Report, which is silent about the person who inflicted the head injury. Thus, statement of Veer Singh and Manoharlal are of not much importance particularly because the Trial Court holding them to be partly reliable have acquitted as many as four accused persons and in the face of the above infirmity about the infliction of the head injury by Shri Ram on Dharamveer, I find that the finding is not based on proper appreciation of evidence rather it is contrary to the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in such cases. No other witnesses can given a better account than the person who has sustained an injury, so long as there is no evidence that either he is changing the statement or that he had become unconscious before the particular injury is caused. In the instant case Dharamveer has stated that it was because of this head injury which Ram Chander inflicted on head by Farsi, he had become unconscious. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the finding arrived at by the trial court on this count is erroneous. The accused Sree Ram deserves to be acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC. When the principal accused is acquitted of the charge under section 207 obviously, there is no justification in maintaining conviction of the accused persons with the aid of section 34 IPC for sharing common intention with a person who has been acquitted and consequently, the charge against them for offence under section 307/34 IPC also fails.