PREM SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Prem Singh is directed against the judgment of the Session judge, Jodhpur, dated 4th June, 1997, convicting him for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. The incident that led to the arrest and prosecution of the appellant may be briefly stated as follow: On 8th July, 1976, at about 9 a.m. Himant Singh son of Anand Singh, deceased, came to know that Fateh singh, Bhoor Singh, Dungar Singh and Prem Singh, appellant, were ploughing his field with the aid of a tractor Himmat Singh informed his father anand Singh about unauthorised ploughing of their field by the aforesaid person. After informing his father Himmat Singh rushed to his field. In the way, he met Bahadur Singh who accompanied him to the field. When Himmat Singh and Bahadur Singh reached there in the field, they saw Fateh Singh, Bhoor Singh and Dungar Singh, and Prem Singh, appellant, ploughing the field with the help of a tractor. Himmat Singh asked the driver of the tractor ton to plough his field. The driver replied that he did not know that the land was a disputed one. Saying this, the driver took away the tractor from the field. Fateh Singh, thereupon, told Himmat Singh that he would plough the land with the aid of bullocks Meanwhile, Anand Singh, deceased, and surajbhan Singh also came in the field. Anand Singh asked Fateh Singh whether the latter had obtained any order relating to the possession of the field Fateh Singh, resented his intervention and directed his sons, namely, Prem Singh appellant and Dungar Singh to bring their truck to the field to kill Anand Singh and Himmat Singh. Thereupon, Prem Singh and Dungar Singh went away from the field for bringing their truck, while Fateh Singh and Bhoor Singh stayed in the field. After some time, Prem Singh and Dungar Singh returned in a truck. Prem Singh, appellant, was driving the track while Dungar Singh was sitting by his side in it. The appellant drove the truck towards Anand Singh and Himmat Singh Anand Singh tried to save himself from being run over by the truck, but he was pushed toward the truck by Fateh Singh. As a result of the push, Anand Singh fell under the truck and Himmat Singh received injuries on his left thigh and hand on account of these parts of his body having come into contact with the moving truck. There after, Himmat Singh and Bahadur Singh lifted of Anand Singh & made him sit down on heap of stones which was lying in the field, premsingh appellant came back in the truck to the place where Surajbhan Singh and Anand Singh were sitting. Dungar Singh handed over a bamboo lathi to Bhur Singh upon the body of Surajbhan Singh which hit the latter on his left hand -finger. Then Surajbhan Singh snatched the lathi from his hand. Thereupon, Dugan Singh gave a Dharia to Bhoor Singh from the truck. Bhoor Singh made an attack on Anand Singh with the Dharia & struck a blow on his head, Bhoor Singh inflicted another blow on the head of Surajbhan Singh with the reverse side of Dharia. Surajbhan Singh tried to word off the blow by wielding his lathi but he received an injury on head. The appellant then drove the truck after Himmat Singh but the latter jumped over the wheel. Prem Singh appellant then pursued Bahadur Singh but Bahadur Singh also ran away. The appellant then came back and drove the truck towards Anand Singh, who was sitting on the heap of stones. Anand Singh was again run over by the truck. The appellant then drove the truck from the field. As Anand Singh had sustained serious injuries he was lifted up by Himmat Singh and Bahadur Singh to a place on the road outside the field where he died after 1 1/2 hours. A written report of this incident was made by Himmat Singh to the Station House Officer, Bilara, the very day it 12:20 p.m. The Station House Officer, Bilara, registered a criminal case under section 2, I.P.C. on the basis of the report and made the usual investigation in to the matter. He rushed to the hospital at Bilara in the first instance and seized the truck RJQ 9790. The truck was brought to halt in front of the hospital. He inspected the truck and found glasses of the wind -screen and left -window broken. He noticed blood on the tyre and rim of its left wheel. The size of the blood stains on the are was 17" long and 6" wide. He took off the tyre and the rim and seized them in the presence of Motbirs. He caused the blood stained portion of the rubber tyre to the taken off for being sent to the Chemical Examiner and prepared a seizure memo Ex. P. 16. There after Devi Lal. S.H.O. rushed to the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan and a site impaction memo and Panchnama of the dead body of Anand Singh Inside the field he found bloodstained stones and earth. He took them into his possession. Apart from these articles, he saw one broker, Dharia one broken lathi, one towel of the deceased having blood stains on it and two gunny bass of Jawar and the shoes of the deceased. He took all the articles into his possession and called for Dr. Mahesh Chandra Vyas, Medical Officer, Government Dispensary, Bilara, for post -mortem examination on the dead body of Anand Singh Dr. Mahesh Chandra Vyas conducted an autopsy over the dead body in the farm of he deceased between 5 and 6 p.m. on 28th July, 1976 and found the following injuries: -

(2.) LACERATED wound 2" x ¼" x 1/2" size, irregular lacerated wound on the scalp left parietal eminence posterior aspect;

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record of the lower court and heard Mr. V.S. Dave for the appellant and Mr. K.C. Bhandari Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. M.R. Bhansali for the complainant Firstly, it has been contended by Mr. V.S. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, that the trial Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant voluntarily crushed Anand Singh, deceased; under left rear wheel of his truck and caused his death. According to the learned counsel the act was not done by the appellant with the knowledge of the likelihood of the actual result caused. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that it has been conclusively established by the evidence of the eye witnesses that the deceased was run over twice by the appellant and, in this circumstance, the Sessions Judge was justified in holding that there had been a voluntary commission of an offence by the appellant punishable under section 304, Part II I.P.C.