RAMJI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the CrPC') has been filed by five accused-appellants assailing Judgment and Order dated 19.12.1990 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.10/1982, whereby learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as follows <FRM>JUDGEMENT_258_LAWS(RAJ)5_2018_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Bhura Mal s/o Shri Deena Nath (PW7), by caste Brahmin, resident of Chandwaji, submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to SHO, Police Station, Chandwaji to the effect that on 10.10.1984 when her sister was cleaning the utensils in the corner of the home, Ganpat who used to reside in the same house after taking meals came there and spat impure water from his mouth. Some drops thereof fell on the clean utensils and upon her sister. His father reprimanded Ganpat at his fault, upon this Ganpat, Ganpat's elder son Ramji Lal and Prakash abused his father and started beating to him by legs and fists. At that time, Sitaram, Postman intervened and saved them. Afterwards, Babulal, who is son of Ganpat's brother-in-law went to Jaipur and called Ram Sharan. At about 6:00 P.M. Deenanath was sitting with Kavita aged 9-10 months child (daughter of the complainant Bhuramal) in his lap. The complainant further mentioned that after completing his duty from Achrol he arrived at his house and at that time Ganpat was sitting in Veranda of the room. Ganpat told his son Prakash that now since the complainant has come, the whole plan would be spoiled. Upon saying so, Ramji Lal, Ram Sharan and Babu Lal came from the roof of the house on the ground-floor. They were armed with 'lakdies'/lathies. Mali and Suni Devi also came down stairs. Ganpat and Prakash also took 'lakdies' in their hands. Ganpat extorted all to wait and kill them. Upon this, first of all, Prakash delivered one blow by 'lakdi' on his right hand. Ramji Lal entered in their another room in which his father was sitting. The complainant further mentioned that first of all his father was beaten by Ramji Lal. At that time, his daughter Kavita was in the lap of his father. Ramjilal gave one 'lathi' blow on the head of his daughter, due to which she received grievous injury on her head. Afterwards all these persons including Mali and Suni Devi started beating them with 'lakdies' and fists. Shambhu Dayal, Sitaram, Balji, Kalyan etc. came there after hearing the noise, they intervened and saved them. His daughter Kavita became unconscious. The complainant further mentioned that he, his father Deenanath, his wife and mother received multiple injuries on their person. His father took his daughter Kavita along-with him to Shahpura Hospital for treatment, where Kavita was declared brought dead. After leaving his father in hospital, he went to police station with dead body of Kavita to lodge the report. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), an F.I.R. No.92/1981 (Ex.P2) was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 323, 120B IPC. Investigation commenced. The police arrested the accused-appellants and filed challan against them. The trial court framed charges for the said offences. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 14 witnesses and also exhibited 35 documents. The defence, in support of its case, did produce any evidence but the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D4. The trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction has failed to consider the statement of Suman Devi Sharma (PW6), who in her testimony admitted that some of the accused persons also received injuries in the alleged occurrence. The accused persons had a right of private defence to their person. The occurrence did take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel argued that Kavita received injuries due to fall on the ground from the lap of Deenanath. Learned counsel argued that independent witnesses did support the prosecution story and some of the independent witnesses who were present at the time of alleged occurrence, were produced by the prosecution. Most of the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested. Learned counsel argued that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has committed error in considering the statements of Deenanath (PW2), Savitri (PW5) and Bhuramal (PW7) trustworthy despite material contradictions, improvements and omissions in their testimony. The allegation against accused appellant No.1 Ramjilal for causing injury on the head of Kavita is an after thought. The statements of Savitri (PW5) and other eye-witnesses clearly show that false allegation has been made against Ramjilal only to implicate him in this case inspite of the fact that he did cause any injury on the head of Kavita. The learned trial court has also failed to consider the statement of Dr. Ghanshyam Dass Ladda (PW14) who in his statement deposed that no injury was given on the head of Kavita by lathi. The accused appellants had no common object to commit the said offence. Learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that there was no motive for commission of the offence and as per the case of the prosecution itself, prior to the incident there was a petty altercation. It is very much probablise that Kavita fell on the ground from the lap of Deenanath when the beating (marpeet) was going on and the injury may be result of fall. The injury also shows that the blow by 'lakdi' was given on her intentionally.