State of Rajasthan Vs.
Mohan Lal & Ors.
[Criminal Appeal
No.316 of 2005]
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1.
This
appeal by special leave assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated
2nd December, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodhpur whereby Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2001 filed by the respondents against
their conviction and sentence for offences punishable under sections 148,
302/149, 323, 324/149 and 325 of the IPC has been partly allowed and while
setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section
302/149, affirmed their conviction for the remaining offences with the
direction that the period already undergone by them shall suffice.
2.
The
facts giving rise to the filing of the charge-sheet against the respondents,
their trial and conviction as also the filing of the appeal before the High
Court have been set out at considerable length in the impugned judgment passed
by the High Court. We need not therefore re-count the same over again except to
the extent the same is absolutely necessary to understand the genesis of the
prosecution case and the submissions made before us at the bar.
Suffice it to say
that Shambhu Lal (PW-1), Piru (PW- 7) and Lalu (deceased) all real brothers and
residents of village Sewana in the State of Rajasthan were on their way back from
the house of one Arjunsha Ghanava on 23rd January, 2000 at about 9.10 p.m., when
they were attacked by the respondents Mohan Lal, Nathu, Suraj Mal, Laxman, Kalu
and Balu Ram, also residents of village Sewana. The accused were, according to
the prosecution, armed with lathis, and dhariyas (Scythes) which they used
freely to cause injuries to the deceased and Shambu Lal (PW-1).
The prosecution case
is that Piru (PW-7) somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the
respondents and rushed to the Police Station to lodge an oral report at about
11.30 p.m., on the basis whereof the police registered a case for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 341 of the IPC, and
hurried to the place of occurrence to take the injured Shambhu and Lalu to Pratapgarh
Hospital where Lalu succumbed to his injuries on 24th January, 2000 at about
6.30 a.m.
A charge under
Section 302 IPC was accordingly added by the police who completed the investigation
and filed a challan before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. The
respondents were committed to face trial to the Sessions Judge at Pratapgarh who
made over the case to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) before whom the respondents
pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. In support of its case, the prosecution
examined as many as 17 witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the
post-mortem examination of the deceased. The accused examined Vajeram in defence
apart from getting Exh.D-1 to D-6 marked at the trial.
3.
The
Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving its case. All the accused-respondents were sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment for offences of murder of deceased Lalu. In addition they
were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment that ranged between one year to three
years for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 ad 325 of the IPC. A fine
of Rs.1500/- in total and a sentence in default was also imposed upon them.
4.
Aggrieved
by the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, the appellants
preferred Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2001 before the High Court which has been
partly allowed by the High Court by the judgment and order impugned in this
appeal. The High Court upon a fresh appraisal of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and the defence came to the conclusion that the former had failed
to establish the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC
framed against the respondents. The High Court observed: "In the instant
case from the deposition of Dr.Mathur, it is more than clear that all the injuries
found on the persons of the deceased were simple in nature. Three injuries were
found by pointed object and other were abrasions. It is not in dispute that the
three injuries found on the person of Piru were all simple in nature and by blunt
object. The injured Shambhu Lal received two grievous injuries on left wrist
and right leg by blunt object and one simple injury on left little finger by
sharp object."
5.
The
High Court has on the above basis acquitted the respondents of the charge of murder
but upheld their conviction for the remaining offences. On the question of sentence,
the High Court found that the respondents have been in custody with effect from
24th January, 2000 and accordingly sentenced them to the period already
undergone. The High Court observed: "Consequently, the appeal is allowed
in part. The appellants are acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302/149
of the I.P.C. Regarding other offences the findings of guilt arrived at by the
learned trial Court is maintained. So far as the question of sentence is concerned,
the Appellants are in custody w.e.f. 24.1.2000. In the totality of circumstances,
we are of the view that in the circumstances of the case a sentence of imprisonment
already undergone would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the sentence
awarded to the appellants is modified to the extent that they are awarded the
sentence already undergone by them. The judgment of the learned Court shall stand
modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. The
appellants shall be released forthwith, if not needed in connection with any
other case."
6.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the
record. The High Court was, in our opinion, justified in holding that the
prosecution had not been able to establish the charge of murder beyond a
reasonable doubt. The High Court has correctly observed that the deposition of Dr.
Narendra Swarup Mathur (PW-13) had clearly established that the injuries
sustained by the deceased were all simple in nature inflicted upon non-vital
parts of the body. The doctor had also clearly admitted in cross-examination
that no finding was recorded in the post- mortem report Exh.P-21 that the injuries
in question were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There
was, in that view of the matter and in the absence of any other evidence to support
the charge levelled against the respondents, no reason to find them guilty of murder.
7.
It
is noteworthy that the Trial court had placed heavy reliance upon the presence
of blood clots below the scalp and inside the middle portion of the skull of
the deceased to come to the conclusion that the death may have been caused by
the injuries on the head which is a vital part of the body. The Trial Court
obviously failed to note that there was no external injury reported by the
doctor on any part of the head. If the respondents really intended to commit
the murder of the deceased and if they were armed with weapons like Lathis and
Dhariyas of which the latter is a sharp-edged weapon, it is difficult to
appreciate why they would not have attacked any vital part of his body. The
absence of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence of
external injury on the skull clearly show that the accused had not intended to
cause the death of the deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to
cause death.
8.
It
is also difficult to attribute any knowledge to the respondents that the
injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death, the same being simple in
nature. Even the doctor who conducted the post-mortem did not certify the
injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. Such being the
state of evidence, the High Court was, in our view, justified in allowing the
appeal of the respondents in part and acquitting them of the charge of the
murder while maintaining their conviction for the remaining offences with which
they were charged. Even on the question of sentence, we do not see any
compelling reason to interfere. The incident in question is more than 12 years
old. The respondents have already suffered incarceration for four years which should
suffice having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which the
incident in question appears to have taken place.
9.
In
the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
..........................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
..........................................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New
Delhi
March
23, 2012
Back
