Saka Ram And Anr vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 13792 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 645/2000

1. Saka Ram S/o Barda Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Akorapadar, P.S. Ahore, Dist. Jalore.

2. Varda Ram S/o Chatara, B/c Meghwal, R/o Akorapadar, P.S. Ahore, Dist. Jalore.

                                                                   ----Appellants
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellants               :    Mr. S.G. Ojha
For Respondents              :    Mr. Salim Khan Mehar, P.P.



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                   Judgment

Reserved on 22/11/2022
Pronounced on 24/11/2022

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been

preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 2.11.2000 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused appellants may kindly be acquitted of the charges levelled against them."

2. Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of

the record would reveal, are that on 05.11.1997, the statement of

the victim Narayan Singh was recorded, wherein it was stated that

on the said day at about 05:30 p.m., he was on his tractor along

with Prem Singh and Pukhraj, and that Rata Ram and the present

accused-appellants, Saka Ram and Varda Ram on their tractor

(2 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

approached and apprehended the victim, dragging him off his

tractor onto the fields of one Pabu Singh. That Rata Ram and the

accused-appellant Varda Ram subdued the victim, while the

accused-appellant Saka Ram inflicted a serious injury on the

victim's head with a 'kulhaadi' (Spade/Axe). It was also stated

that Sakaram threatened the victim with his life. And that, when

Prem Singh and other persons rushed to the spot, the accused

persons fled the scene, after which he lost consciousness and fell

to the ground. Thereafter, he was then taken by them on the

tractor to village and then to the hospital in a jeep; which was

later conveyed to him by Shaitan Singh, Jabarsingh and

Lakhsingh. On the basis of such report, the police lodged an F.I.R.

bearing No. 203/1997 on 05.11.1997 for the offences under

Sections 341, 324, 307 IPC against the aforementioned three

accused persons.

2.1 After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against

them for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307/34

IPC before the learned Court below; upon trial, the learned Court

below, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2000, acquitted

Rata Ram but convicted the present accused-appellants; Sakaram

for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and Varda Ram

for the offences under Sections 341 and 307/34 IPC, and

accordingly, awarded each of them a sentence of 6 months S.I.

and 5 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default of

which they were to undergo further 6 months R.I. respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned

judgment and submitted that the said judgment is bad in the eye

(3 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

of the law, as the alleged dispute between the accused-appellants

and the victim was owing to payment of rent of a tractor, and that

the rent was payable by the accused-appellant Varda Ram, who

was the debtor, to the complainant, and that the version of the

prosecution is called into question as it more likely that it was the

complainant who instigated the accused-appellant which lead to

the occurrence of the incident in question.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the

accused-Rata Ram was not arrayed as an accused in the charge-

sheet filed with regard to the incident in question but the learned

Court below took cognizance against him subsequently. That upon

trial, the learned Court below acquitted accused-Rataram but

erroneously proceeded to convict the present accused-appellants,

which reflects over-implication and overreach at the instance of

the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there

was ample time for the eye-witnesses to intervene and interfere in

the incident in question, if the version of the prosecution is to be

believed that the victim was dragged off his tractor and taken to a

third person, Pabusingh's fields, some forty feet away. That there

was sufficient time to repeat the blow inflicted to the head of the

victim, which was not done, thereby reflecting a lack of intention

to cause death of the victim by the accused-appellants, and that

therefore the charge against the accused-appellants for the

offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable in the eye of the

law.

(4 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants and

submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by

the learned Court below has been rightly passed, after taking into

due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the

present case, including the submissions on behalf of the accused-

appellants hereinabove, coupled with the evidences placed on the

record before the Court; specifically the testimonies of all the

witnesses; the victim, the eye-witnesses, the medical officers,

amongst others; therefore, the judgment impugned ought to be

upheld.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the learned Court below framed the

three issues; namely, (i) whether the injury inflicted upon the

victim-Narayansingh was made with a sharp-edged weapon with

the intention to cause death; (ii) whether co-accused Rataram and

Varda Ram had similar intention, as that of the main accused Saka

Ram, to cause death to the victim and; (iii)whether victim-

Narayansingh was restrained and subdued against his will at the

time of the incident in question.

9. This Court further observes that in answering the first and

second issues in the positive, the learned Court below carefully

perused the testimonial and medical evidence placed before it,

which revealed that there was no delay whatsoever in filing of the

F.I.R., that the story of the prosecution was supported and

corroborated by all the witnesses, including the medical officers,

(5 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

Dr. Prahladsingh and Dr.L.B. Aan, the police officers, the eye-

witnesses, Prem Singh and Vakaram, ancillary witnesses, Shaitan

Singh and Jabar Singh, among others. Furthermore, the injury

was inflicted with a Kulhaadi on a vital part of the body of the

victim, his head, and evidence of both the medical witnesses

reveal that a lack of treatment in due time could have lead to the

death of the victim, the cause being the injury of about 9 x 2 x 2

c.m. upon his head which was caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

The said witnesses also ruled out the cause of such injury being a

fist fight or a free fall on the mud guard of the tractor.

10. This Court also observes that the learned Court below found

that the eye-witnesses and the victim deposed that the injury was

caused by accused Saka Ram with the Kulhaadi, and no testimony

against this version was proffered by any witness. The weapon in

question, at Exp. 12, naksha report, at Exp. 13, the F.S.L. report,

at Exp. 20, reveal blood stains on the weapon and spot in

question, which are human. Furthermore, the same were sealed

and maintained in accordance with law, with the chain link and

sanctity of evidence being maintained from being sealed after

seizure at the first instance to be produced before the learned

Court below; the same has been corroborated by witnesses; the

maalkhana in-charge Kundan Singh, the Sipahi Bhim Singh who

transported the same from the maalkhana to the laboratory, for

which the receipt was issued, Girvir Singh, the officer Sipahi in the

Court who received it sealed.

11. This Court further observes that in answering the third issue

in the positive, the learned Court below found that the injury in

(6 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

question as already discussed is serious and grievous in nature

which could have caused the death of the victim, furthermore,

relying on case law as laid down by this Hon'ble Court, the learned

Court below found the kulhaadi in question to be a sharp-edged

weapon used to inflict injury upon the vital part of the victim's

person. That the accused-appellant Varda Ram restrained the

victim, while the accused-appellant Saka Ram inflicted the injury

upon him, is corroborated by the testimony of the victim and

others who rushed to the spot, upon which the accused fled the

scene of the incident in question.

11.1 Furthermore, the testimony of the accused-appellant itself

reveals that there was animosity between the victim and the

accused-appellants owing to a rental dispute regarding a tractor.

That there was a heated exchange of words regarding the same as

well; based on these both reasons, the learned Court below found

prior animosity towards the victim, and intention to cause his

death. And that accused-appellant Varda Ram is the father of the

accused-appellant Saka Ram.

12. This Court further observes that the learned Court below

rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the

charges levelled against them, looking into the serious nature of

the injury, the use of the sharp-edged weapon i.e. kulhaadi, the

previous animosity between the parties and the intention to cause

the death of the victim, all of which are reflected and corroborated

by testimonial and medical evidence, and that there is nothing on

the record which accord merit to submissions advanced on behalf

(7 of 7) [CRLA-645/2000]

of the accused-appellants, and therefore, the same are without

any foundation, in fact.

12.1 Furthermore, the learned Court below, looking into

conflicting testimony and that the third accused-Rataram arrived

at the scene at a later time which was corroborated by the eye-

witness, did not involve in any heated exchange nor inflicted any

injury to the victim, rightly acquitted him of the charges levelled

against him.

13. This Court, as an upshot of the above discussion, looking into

the record of the case, and the impugned judgment of conviction

passed by the learned Court below against the present accused-

appellants, finds that the impugned judgment does not suffer from

any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

14. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby

dismissed. The accused-appellants are on bail in pursuance of the

order dated 21.12.2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B.

Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence

No.440/2000. Their bail bonds and sureties are forfeited; they are

directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the

concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.

All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned

court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)