Joga Ram vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6946 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 221/2019

Joga Ram S/o Late Sh. Mukna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Guda Bishnoiyan, Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State, Through P.P.

2. Kana Ram S/o Bhakar Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Bhakarwali Dhani, Guda Bishnoiyan, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

3. Meka Ram S/o Sh. Budha Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Bhakarwali Dhani, Guda Bishnoiyan, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

4. Ramesh S/o Kana Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Bhakarwali Dhani, Guda Bishnoiyan, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

5. Om Prakash S/o Bhakar Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Bhakarwali Dhani, Guda Bishnoiyan, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

6. Ganga Ram S/o Bhera Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Fitkasni, P.s.

Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     None present
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vineet Jain
                                  Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Judgment

10/03/2021

The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the appellant (complainant) for assailing the

impugned judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Regular

Criminal Case No.14/2014 whereby, the respondent-accused

Ramesh, Om Prakash and Kana Ram were acquitted from all the

(2 of 3) [CRLAD-221/2019]

charges i.e. Sections 147, 148, 149, 143, 343, 323, 447 and

Section 302 IPC whereas, the accused Kana Ram and Meka Ram

were convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and the

accused Budha ram was convicted for the offence under Section

302 IPC. The complainant Joga Ram has approached this Court

through this appeal for assailing the acquittal of the respondents

from the graver charges referred to supra.

The appeal was preferred way back in the year 2017 and

since then, repeated adjournments have been sought by the

counsel representing the appellant to argue the case. On

19.02.2021, counsel for the appellant was granted last

opportunity to argue the case but despite that, no one has

appeared to argue the appeal.

We have considered the averments made in the memo of

appeal and have gone through the impugned judgment and

record.

Suffice it to say that it is an admitted position from the

evidence of material prosecution witnesses that the land in

question, where the incident took place, was in joint possession of

the accused and the complainant party. As per the allegation set

out in the FIR No.121/2014 (Ex.P1) submitted by the appellant

Joga Ram (PW-1) and the statements of the injured and the other

eye-witnesses viz. Kiran (PW-7), Mangilal (PW-2), Rajesh (PW-3),

Sunil @ Tony (PW-5), Mira (PW-6), Sharda (PW-8) and Suman

(PW-13), the accused Buddha Ram was trying to build a boundary

wall in the field, on which, the deceased Mukna Ram objected. As

a consequence, a quarrel flared up during which, Buddha Ram

inflicted a blow on the head of Mukna Ram by an iron rod which

proved fatal. As per the postmortem report, in addition to the

(3 of 3) [CRLAD-221/2019]

head injury found on the body of the deceased, there were two

more abrasions which apparently were as a result of fall. The

incident took place during the course of a bonafide dispute over

possession on the land in question and hence, there is no evidence

showing that the accused party had formed an unlawful assembly

or were acting in furtherance of the common intention to commit

murder. Manifestly, thus individual role assigned by the witnesses

to the accused would have to be seen for establishing the charges.

Since pertinent allegation of the witnesses referred to supra was

to the effect that the fatal blow on the head of the deceased was

inflicted by Buddha Ram and as the two accused Kana Ram and

Meka Ram were assigned simple injuries to the witnesses, the

learned trial court was absolutely justified in acquitting the

respondents-accused from the charges 147, 148, 149, 143, 343,

323, 447 and Section 302 IPC. The impugned judgment dated

20.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5,

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Regular Criminal Case No.14/2014 does

not suffer from any infirmity, either factual or legal, warranting

interference by this Court.

Thus, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

36-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)