Prahlad vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5782 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 369/1989

 Prahlad son of Devi, aged about 25 years, resident of Kajodiya,
 Police Station, Phooliyakla, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
 (At present in Central Jail, Ajmer)
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                           Versus
 State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                        ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Lakhawat with Mr. B.N. Sandu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl.G.A.

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                        Judgment

RESERVED ON                                    ::                        02/08/2022
PRONOUNCED ON                                  ::                        24/08/2022

(Per Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the

judgment and order of conviction dated 29.09.1989 whereby the

appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and

has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.500/- has also been imposed upon him. On non-payment of

the fine, the appellant is to further undergo six months rigorous

imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated the fact of the case are that complainant -

Gopal lodged an FIR on 22.05.1984 at 8.00 a.m. against Ram

Ratan, Ram Pyara, Prahlad - appellant, Ladi and Aloki for the

(2 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 352, 355, 530,

307, 427 and 504 IPC. The police after due investigation

submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and Ram

Pyara son of Devi and Ram Ratan son of Devi. Charges were

framed against all the accused persons. All the accused denied

charges and sought trial. On behalf of the prosecution as many as

18 witnesses were examined and 34 documents were exhibited.

After recording of the explanation of the appellant under Section

313 Cr.P.C., in defence one witness was produced and as many as

5 documents were exhibited. The trial Court after hearing the final

arguments has acquitted accused - Ram Pyara and Ram Ratan and

convicted the present appellant for the offence under Section 302

IPC, aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred

before this Court.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the accused - appellant

that the present case squarely falls under Section 96 of the IPC

and it is only as a right of private defence that the injury was

caused to the deceased. It is also contended that the incident took

place on the spur of the moment. The appellant sustained injuries

on his hand and head whereas, his brother Ram Pyara sustained

three lacerated wounds on his head. The injuries, which have been

sustained by the appellant and Ram Pyara, have not been

explained by the prosecution. It is further contended that the

deceased sustained two injuries, out of which, one was blunt and

another was sharp. Learned counsel has placed reliance on

Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Versus State of Bihar: AIR 1976 SC 2263.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

State has opposed the appeal. It is contended that the accused

has exceeded the right of private defence and the trial Court has

(3 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

discussed the entire evidence on record and has come to a correct

finding. It is also contended that as per the evidence adduced, the

accused has hit the deceased on the back of the head when he

had entered the farm to take his goats.

5. I have considered the contentions and have carefully gone

through the material on record.

6. On perusal of the evidence of material witnesses, Gopal (PW-

7), who is also an injured in this case, it is evident that he has

specifically alleged that Ram Ratan, Ram Pyara and Prahlad -

appellant hit the deceased when he was taking his goats out of the

farm. He has stated that accused - appellant & Ram Ratan gave a

blow of Fawda on the head and Ram Pyara gave a blow of Fawda

on the left leg of the deceased. However, in the cross-

examination, this witness has stated that the incident did not take

place on account of goat entering the farm and stated that the

goat did not enter in the farm of the accused. He has specifically

denied that some altercation took place because cattle of the

deceased entered in the farm of the accused. In the cross-

examination, this witness also stated that he and deceased have

not caused any injury to the accused side.

7. Jagga (PW-5) has also narrated the incident, however, in the

cross-examination, he has stated that the incident took place

when the goat and sheep of the deceased entered in the farm of

the accused side. He has specifically stated that the farm is

belonging to Ram Ratan, Ram Pyara and Prahlad. This witness has

also stated that he did not see any injuries on appellant - Prahlad

and Ram Pyara.

8. Kalu (PW-8) has stated that the dispute took place when a

goat belonging to the deceased entered in the farm of Ram Ratan,

(4 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

Ram Pyara and appellant. He has stated that some altercation

took place between the two, however, in the cross-examination,

he has stated that Gopal and deceased did not cause any injuries

to the accused. Heera Lal (PW-9), who is also the owner of a

neighbouring farm has stated that the appellant and Ram Pyara

were making the boundary wall. When a goat belonging to the

deceased entered in the farm of the appellant, some altercation

took place between the parties. In his cross-examination, he has

stated that he has not seen any injuries on the accused appellant

and Ram Pyara as they had left the place of occurrence.

Hanumant Singh - SHO (PW-18) has admitted in his cross-

examination that he found a bandage on the head of Ram Pyara

and the appellant. He has also stated that he did not get the

accused medically examined.

9. In his explanation given under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the

appellant has stated that they were making their boundary wall

when the deceased purposely got his cattle entered into their

farm, when they objected to this, the deceased caused injury on

the head of Ram Pyara. When the appellant tried to defend him,

he also caused injury on the head of the appellant and in private

defence, injury was caused to the deceased and the action was

done in exercise of right of private defence. In defence, evidence

of Mahesh Kumar (DW-1), Medical Officer, has been recorded. He

has stated that Ram Pyara has sustained three lacerated wounds,

one on the right parietal region of his head and two on the right

and left occipital regions respectively.

10. The trial Court has completely ignored the fact that a cross-

FIR was also lodged by Ram Pyara and Ex.D-5 is his injury report,

which goes to show that Ram Pyara had sustained three blunt

(5 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

injuries on his right and left occipital regions of head. The story

narrated in the cross-FIR is that Ram Pyara was making his

boundary wall when the deceased brought his cattles and got

them entered in the farm of Ram Pyara. When Ram Pyara was

trying to push the cattle out of his farm, the deceased and Gopal

attacked him and gave blows of Lathi on his head. At that time,

the present appellant ran to save his brother, he also received

injuries and in exercise of right of private defence, injuries were

caused to other side. Ram Lal (PW-17) has also stated that Ram

Pyara and Prahlad were making their boundary wall. The deceased

got his cattle entered in their farm and when they objected,

deceased and Gopal started beating Ram Pyara and appellant.

This witness was declared hostile, but he has specifically stated

that accused appellant and Ram Pyara sustained injuries on the

head and to save themselves, injury was caused by a Fawda on

the head of the deceased. The defence has explained the reason

of the incident and their story has to be believed, as the

prosecution has utterly failed to explain the injuries more

particularly three injuries caused on the occipital parietal region of

Ram Pyara and the injuries caused on the head of the present

appellant.

11. The Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Versus State of

Bihar (supra) while dealing with a case on akin facts has held that

when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of

an accused, three results may follow:

(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence;

(6 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

(2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.

12. In the present case, it has been a defence of the appellant

that they had exercised their right of private defence. There is a

cross-FIR in which version of the appellant is forthcoming and an

explanation has been given as to why the incident took place and

the injuries were caused to both the sides. However, as per the

prosecution version, Ram Pyara and appellant did not receive any

injuries, which are contrary to the medical report and the

statement of the doctor, who had examined Ram Pyara.

13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered

view that the genesis and the origin of the present occurrence was

not put forth by the prosecution and the defence version cannot

be disbelieved for the very reason that lacerated wounds on the

parietal and occipital regions of head were caused on Ram Pyara

as well as on the present appellant, who was not got medically

examined by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known

to him. The appeal therefore deserves to be and is, accordingly,

allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 29.09.1989

passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside and accused

appellant - Prahlad is acquitted of the charges levelled against

him. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant stands cancelled.

14. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused appellant is directed to

forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a

surety bond in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of

this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with

(7 of 7) [CRLA-369/1989]

the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition

against the judgment or on grant of leave to appeal, the accused

appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                           (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

                                   SUNIL SOLANKI/PS









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)