RAMCHANDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his judgment, dated September 24, 1966, Sessions Judge. Ganganagar, convicted the accused Ramchander under Section 302, read with Section 34, I. P. C. , and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment, Budhram was convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. , and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 307, read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION story can be summarised in this way. There were two faction in the village Lalewala, Police Station, Padampur, District Ganganagar. The accused Budhram and Ramchander belonged to one faction. Jeeraj and others owed allegiance to the other rival group. It is alleged that Budhram and Ramchander gave false evidence against Jee-raj and others in some litigation. On December 29, 1965, P. W. 5 Hansraj s/o. Bagrawat, a relation of Jeeraj, and P. W. 6 Jagdish s/o. Jeeraj left their fields at about 3 p. m. with their camels, loaded with sugar-canes and when they passed in front of Ramchander's house, his son Budhram and his wife rebuked them and asked them as to how they could venture to pass that way. Both the persons told Budhram and his mother that they had every right to make use of the public way. This was followed by further altercations between Budhram and his mother on the one side and Hansraj and Jagdish on the other. In the course of quarrel, Hansraj was beaten. He sustained eight injuries, which were simple in nature. Jagdish too hit Budhram's mother with a sugarcane, which he was holding in his hand. Thereafter, Jeeraj, his son Shanker, Bagrawat and his son Hanuman left their fields for their village Lalewala at about 4-30 p. m. On their reaching the vicinity of the house of Hazari, they heard a gun fire from behind. They turned back to discern as to what the matter was. They noticed that Ramchander and Budhram stood at a distance of about thirty steps from them. Budhram was armed with a double barrel gun. Ramchander was equipped with a single barrel gun. Budhram then immediately fired and hit Shanker, The victim sustained an injury on his forehead, as a result of which he, after falling down, expired instantaneously. Subsequently Ramchander also fired his gun, hitting Bagrawat and his son Hanuman. Hanuman received injuries on his right shoulder. Bagrawat sustained injuries near his neck. Soon after Jeeraj raised an alarm. Ramjas came from the side of a 'digi'. Brijlal and Sohanlal also arrived there. The accused persons then ran away towards their house. First information report of the occurrence was lodged by Jeeraj that very day at about 8-30 p. m. , with the Police Station Padampur which is at a distance of about 17 miles away from the spot of occurrence. On receipt of the report a case was registered under Sections 302 and 307, I. P. C. and investigation followed. The police prepared site plan, Ex. P. 2; description memo of the corpse of the deceased Shanker Ex. P. 4; description memo of the spot Ex. P. 8; seizure memo of the 12 bore gun Ex. P. 11 information memo regarding the recovery of another 12 bore gun Ex. P. 12; and its recovery memo Ex. P. 13 Bagrawat was examined by the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ganganagar, Dr. S. N, Vyas, P. W. 11, on December 29, 1965. Following injuries were found on his person: 1. Oval lacerated gun shot wound 4" x 1/3" on the left side neck and space between it and the tip of left shoulder region, the margins were inverted. 2. Oval lacerated gun shot wound on 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side neck between it and the tip of the left shoulder region 3" x 3" to the injury No. 1 with overted margins. Hanuman was also examined by the above-named Doctor on the aforesaid date and the following injuries were noticed on his person: 1, Oval lacerated gun shot wound 1/3" x 1/3" on the right shoulder region with inverted margins. The shirt over the wound was torn. 2. Oval lacerated gun shot wound 1/2" x 4" on posterior aspect of the right shoulder region 31/2" behind injury No. 1 with overted margins. Autopsy of the dead body of Shanker was carried out by Dr. Kamal Nayan, P. W. 12, Medical Officer, State Dispensary, Ghamurwali. The dead body had had the following injury. 2" x 2" punctured wound piercing the skull at the inner angle of the left eyebrow. According to the Doctor, that injury was a gun shot one. The skull at the bottom of the said wound was fractured. The wound had gone into the cranial cavity and bullet was found lying in that cavity near the occipital bone. Membrane of brain at the site of the bullet entrance was punctured, below the wound in the skull at the exit behind the left cerebral hemisphere. Bullet had passed through the whole antero posterior length of the left cerebral hemisphere causing laceration and haemorrhage. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock, caused by the injury to the brain, as a result of the bullet passing through the brain substance. After recessary investigation the accused Ramchander and Budhram were challaned by the police in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur. The said Magistrate conducted inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 207-A, Criminal P. C. and committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to face trial under as. 302 and 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. for having committed the murder of Shanker by shooting him dead and for having made an attempt to commit murder on the lives of Hanuman and Bagrawat by causing gun shot injuries to them. Commitment of Ramchander under Section 25 and that of Budhram under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was also made. The two accused denied to have committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them by the prosecution. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in his statement, recorded under Section 342, Criminal P. C, Budhram said that he was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He pleaded alibi. The other accused Ramchander stated that at about 5. 30 p. m. , on the date of the incident, Bagrawat, Hanuman, Shanker, Ramjas and Hansraj came to him. Bagrawat and Ramjas were armed with guns and the others were in possession of Gandasis and when they were about 80 steps away from his house, Bagrawat threw a challenge at him and fired his gun. Thereafter Ramjas also fired his gun. The accused then picked-up his gun and put the same on the wall and fired at from both the barrels. Budhram was not present at that time at his residence. His wife was, however, there. He then ran away to 58 L. N, B. in the night the police reached the spot and he surrendered himself to it. The trial Court disbelieved the explanation furnished by Ramchander and, relying upon the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced both the accused, as stated above.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the above verdict, the two accused have filed the present appeals. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is two fold. His first complaint is that when the complainants' party wanted to assault the accused with weapons, it was Ramchander, who armed with a licensed double barrel gun, fired it in exercise of the right of private defence and that Budhram has been falsely implicated in the case for having murdered Shanker. That plea, according to learned Counsel, taken by the accused Ramchander both in the committing and in the trial Courts has been consistent and the same should not have been lightly brushed aside by the Court below. Learned Counsel's another grievance is that the trial Court went wrong in applying the provisions of Section 34 to the case of Ramchander in respect of the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and to the case of Budhram for offence under Section 307, I. P. C.