Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pratap And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
(1 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/1991
1. Pratap S/o Shri Meghji
2. Kachru S/o Shri Meghji
3. Govindlal S/o Shri Kachru
4. Ratan S/o Shri Meghji
All by caste Patidar, R/o Village Bagidora, District Banswara,
Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Mr. Rohit Mutha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP
Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev for Mr. V.N.
Kalla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13/09/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA,J.)
The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as
below vide the judgment dated 12.11.1990 passed by learned
District & Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.59/88:-
Appellants :- Pratap, Kachru, Govindlal and Ratan
Offence Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of
under default of payment of
Section fine
302 read with Life Imprisonment Rs.100/- 2 weeks' Additional S.I.
(2 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
Sec. 34 IPC
Appellant :- Kachru
Offence Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of
under default of payment of
Section fine
307 IPC 5 Years' RI Rs.5000/- 1 Year & 3 Months
Additional RI.
They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374
(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentences passed against them by the trial court.
Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the
appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
Ramesh Chandra (PW.2) lodged an oral report (Ex.P2) at the
Police Station Kalinjra on 19.06.1988 at about 7:30 AM alleging
inter alia that in the morning at about 6 O' Clock, his grandfather
Ratanji S/o Shri Meghji and one Shri Meghji S/o Shri Kodarji
Patidar, both residents of Bagidora were proceeding for the village
Nogama. About half an hour later, i.e., at about 6:30 AM, his
brother Jagdish Chandra came and told him that Shri Ratanji and
Meghji were being beaten near the village Regniya by Pratap S/o
Shri Meghji, Ratna S/o Shri Meghji, Kacharu S/o Shri Meghji and
Govind S/o Shri Kacharu Patidar, all residents of Bagidora by sticks
owing to a long-standing land dispute. On hearing this, the
informant along with his brother Jagdish and Khemji and Vallabh,
sons of Meghji rushed towards place of incident and saw the
(3 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
abovenamed accused persons running away. They went near the
victims and saw that Ratanji had passed away whereas Meghji was
injured seriously. Both were having visible bleeding wounds all
over the body. A few more people came at spot whereafter Meghji
(the injured) was sent to the Bagidora Hospital for treatment.
Jagdish was left behind to guard the dead body and Shri Ramesh
Chandra proceeded to the police station for reporting the matter.
On the basis of this oral report, FIR No.228/1988 (Ex.P3)
came to be registered at the Police Station Kalinjara, District
Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307
read with Section 34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced.
The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot. The dead body of
Shri Ratanji was picked up and was sent to the Government
Referral Hospital, Bagidora. Dr. Indra Narayan (PW.1) conducted
autopsy upon the dead body of Shri Ratanji taking note of the
following injuries:-
1. Incised wound admeasuring 2 x 2 x 1 cm on right forearm
2. Incised wound admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on left corner of
shoulder.
3. Bruise admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on left knee.
4. Bruise admeasuring 1 x 1 cm on right knee
5. Bruise admeasuring 4 x 4 cm on right posterior part of
waist.
6. Bruise admeasuring 6 x 2 cm on left side of waist.
7. Bruise cum swelling on left shoulder posteriorly
8. Bruise cum swelling on left shoulder posteriorly
(4 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
The doctor stated that on internal examination, Ribs No.6 to
10 on left as well as right side were fractured. Thoracic cage was
compressed. Both lungs were ruptured as a result of the fracture
of ribs. The Medical Jurist opined the cause of death to be intra-
thoracic and intra-abdominal bleeding associated with shock
caused by fracture of ribs. The injury to the ribcage was visible
from naked eyes. The fractures caused to the ribs were opined to
be individually and cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. Postmortem report (Ex.P1) was issued by
Dr.Indra Narayan (PW.1). Shri Meghji had been referred to
Government Hospital, Banswara for treatment where he was
examined by Dr. Bajrang Singh (PW.9) who issued the medico
legal report (Ex.P/8) taking note of the following injuries on the
body of Shri Meghji.
1. Contusion admeasuring 4 x 2 cm on left pectoral region.
2. Contusion admeasuring 2 x 1 cm on anterior region of left
arm
3. Contusion admeasuring 3 x 1 cm on upper one-third part of
posterior region of left forearm
4. Lacerated wound admeasuring ½ x ¼ cm into deep skin on
left ring finger
5. Contusion admeasuring 20 x 3 cm on posterior trunk on right
side with surgical emphysema and hematoma
6. Contusion admeasuring 10 X 3 cm left side of trunk
7. Contusion admeasuring 10 x 3 cm on right scapular region.
8. Contusion admeasuring 6 X 3 cm on left scapular region.
9. Abrasion admeasuring 1 x ½ cm on left foot dorsum.
(5 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
The accused appellants were arrested and as is usual, the
weapons of offence were recovered at their instance. After
concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against
the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 302/34, 307, 325 and 323 IPC. As the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC was sessions triable, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Banswara where
charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 and in
alternative 302/34 IPC were framed against all the accused
persons. Additional charge for the offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC was framed against the appellant Kacharu. All the
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The
prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents
to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused
persons denied the same but did not lead any oral evidence in
defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the
evidence available on record, the learned trial judge, proceeded to
convict and sentence the appellants as above vide the judgment
dated 12.11.1990 which is assailed in this appeal.
Shri Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel representing the
appellants vehemently and fervently contended that the entire
prosecution case is false and fabricated. The evidence of witnesses
Ramesh Chandra (PW.2) and Jagdish Chandra (PW.4) is not
corroborated and is rather contradicted by the evidence of injured
witness Meghji (PW.3). He submitted that neither was it
(6 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
mentioned in the oral report (PW.2) that Ramesh Chandra was told
about the names/identity of the accused by the injured witness
Shri Meghji nor did Shri Meghji himself make any such statement.
Thus, Shri Mathur urged that there is a grave doubt as to how the
names of the accused were introduced in the oral report. He
further submitted that the prosecution tried to prove prior enmity
on the strength of some land litigation instituted inter-se between
the parties. However that case was decided long before the
incident and thus, the accused had no motive whatsoever to inflict
the injuries to the deceased or the injured. As per Shri Mathur, the
incident seems to have taken place all of a sudden without any
premeditation and thus, even if it is assumed that the accused
assaulted the deceased and the injured then too, all the injuries
were caused on the non-vital parts of the body. The accused were
four in number and were armed with weapons but still they
consciously chose not to land even a single blow on the head or
any other vital body part of either Shri Ratanji or Shri Meghji.
Thus, if at all, the guilt of the appellants is to be sustained, then at
best, they can be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. He
implored the Court to modify the impugned judgment with
suitable reduction in sentences awarded to the appellants.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. They urged that
the appellants herein waylaid the two helpless victims Ratanji,
aged 65 years and Meghji aged 60 years while they were casually
proceeding together. They were waylaid by the accused and were
(7 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
assaulted brutally by sharp as well as blunt weapons. The accused
intentionally selected thoracic area to land the blows. The intensity
of the blows was so strong that four ribs of both sides of Ratanji
were fractured to such extent that same were visible by naked
eye. As a consequence, the thoracic cage got compressed and
both the lungs got ruptured. Such kind of injuries would inevitably
to death of the victim. Countering the defence submissions
regarding source of information for mentioning the names of the
accused in the FIR, learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's
attention to the statement of Jagdish Chandra (PW.4) who stated
that on 19.06.1988, at about 6 O' Clock in the morning, he was
going to attend the call of nature and saw the accused appellants
assaulting Ratanji and Meghji by axe (held by Pratap) and lathis
(held by other accused persons). Jagdish immediately rushed to
the village and came back to the spot with Ramesh, Khemji and
Vallabh. When they reached the spot, the accused persons were
proceeding towards the Harijan Mohalla. Meghji was lying down in
the field of Lalu whereas Ratanji had expired. Thus, as per learned
Public Prosecutor, the entire incident of beating was witnessed by
Jagdish who called the other witnesses and thus, there was no
difficulty for Ramesh to have identified and named the accused in
the FIR. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
deposition of medical jurist PW.1 Dr. Indra Narayan clearly
establishes that repeated blows were landed by the accused
persons on the vital area of body of the deceased i.e., the thoracic
cage. The blows were very forceful and fractured four ribs on both
the left as well as right side causing rupture of the lungs leading
to excessive bleeding which caused instantaneous death of Shri
Ratanji at the spot. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the
(8 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
intention as well as knowledge to commit murder can definitely be
attributed to the accused appellants. They had strong motive to
harm Shri Ratanji because of the long-standing land dispute which
fact was proved by reliable evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the trial court has appreciated the evidence
available on record in an apropos manner. The impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever
warranting interference. On these grounds, he implored the Court
to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have minutely re-appreciated
the evidence available on record.
The main contention of Shri Mathur to assail the conviction of
the appellants was that mentioning of the names of the accused
persons in the oral report lodged by Shr Ramesh Chandra (PW.2)
brings the entire prosecution case under a cloud of doubt. His
submission was based on the fact that the injured Meghji (PW.3)
did not state that he share the names of the assailants with either
the informant Ramesh Chandra (PW.2) or any other witness, who
came at the spot. We have considered the said submission which
is having no merit whatsoever. The eye-witness Jagdish (PW.4)
gave convincing evidence stating that on 19.06.1988, at about
6:00 AM, he was proceeding from his house for attending the call
of nature. He saw the accused appellants assaulting Ratanji and
Meghji in between the fencing of the fields of Kacharu and Lalu
Patidar. The accused Pratap was armed with an axe whereas the
remaining three were armed with lathis. Pratap inflicted an axe
(9 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
blow to Ratanji but the witness could not say where precisely the
blow landed. The witness stated that Kacharu was hitting Meghji
and all accused were assaulting Ratanji. The witness claimed to
have seen the incident from a distance of 100 feet whereafter he
rushed to the village and told Ramesh, Khemji and Vallabh of the
incident whereafter all of them proceeded to the spot. When they
reached the crime scene, the accused persons were seen
proceeding towards the Harijan Mohalla. Apparently thus, the
witness Jagdish saw the incident with his own eyes and Ramesh
too saw the accused persons going away from the place of
incident after completing the assault. The statement of Jagdish
regarding the manner in which the incident was perpetrated is
fully corroborated by the evidence of the injured witness Shri
Meghji (PW.3). Thus, there is no suspicious circumstance in the
fact that names of the assailants were mentioned in the oral
report submitted by Ramesh because such detail was known to
Ramesh himself and his brother Jagdish the eye-witness who also
told him that these assailants had beaten Ratanji and Meghji.
Now, we proceed to discuss the evidence of the injured
witness Meghji (PW.3) who stated that he and Ratanji were
proceeding towards Nogama. On the way, Pratap, Kacharu, Ratna
and Govind, the appellants surrounded them. Pratap was armed
with an axe and the remaining three assailants were armed with
lathis. All initially assaulted Ratanji by their respective weapons
who fell down injured. Thereafter, Kacharu started assaulting him.
Meghji was categoric in his version that only Kacharu gave him the
blows of lathi. Ratanji expired in a few minutes. Fifteen minutes
later, Jaggu S/o Shri Vakta, Mahendra and Khemji came there and
(10 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
took him to the Bagidora hospital and then, he was taken to the
Banswara Hospital. He was also taken to the Ahmedabad hospital
for treatment of spine injuries. The witness further stated that the
accused had assaulted Ratanji because of a long-standing land
dispute which had been instituted in courts at Kushalgarh,
Udaipur, Revenue Board, Ajmer and also in the High Court. All the
courts decided the dispute in favour of Ratanji. The witness stated
that he was assisting Ratanji and that is why, he was also beaten.
In the entire cross-examination conducted from this witness, not a
single word was put to him that he had any motive to falsely
implicate the accused in this case. No argument was made on
behalf of defence that the witness Meghji had any animosity
against the accused. Thus, he had no cause to falsely implicate
the accused for the crime. The fact that the witness Meghji
categorically stated that all injuries inflicted on his body were
caused by Kacharu convinces us regarding his truthfulness. If at
all the witness had a motive to falsely implicate the accused
persons, he could have attributed his multiple injuries to all the
assailants. The evidence of the injured witness Shri Meghji is
wholly reliable and is duly corroborated by the medical evidence.
Dr. Indra Narayan (PW.1) conducted autopsy on the body of
Ratanji and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/1) wherein as
many as eight injuries were noticed including fracture of humerus
bone and a sharp weapon injury on the back side of right shoulder,
fracture of radius and ulna bones on the left hand and fracture of
ribs nos.6 to 10 on both sides associated with rupture of lungs.
The doctor categorically stated that injuries to the ribs leading to
rupture of lungs were individually sufficient to cause death of Shri
(11 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
Ratanji in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Bajrang Singh (PW.9)
proved the injury report of Shri Meghji taking note of fracture of
four ribs.
The irrefutable conclusion as emerging from the evidence of
the material prosecution witnesses is that the accused waylaid the
two victims in the early hours of 19.06.1988 while they were
proceeding towards Nogama. The accused were armed with
dangerous weapons viz., axe and lathis. They gave indiscriminate
blows of their respective weapons to the victims. The prosecution
has proved the motive attributed to the accused for committing
the offence which was a long-standing land dispute for which
litigation had also taken place. Resultantly, there is no hesitation
for this Court to affirm the findings recorded by the trial court that
the accused appellants herein waylaid and assaulted the two
victims fueled by the motive of the previous land dispute and in
this process, they intentionally caused injuries sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death of Shri Ratanji and
life-threatening injuries to Shri Meghji. Thus, the conviction of the
accused appellants as recorded by the trial court for the above
offences is absolutely justified. The impugned judgment has been
passed after a thorough and apropos appreciation of the material
facts and evidence available on record and the same does not
suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being
devoid of merit. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are
cancelled. They shall surrender before the trial court within next
thirty days whereafter they shall be transmitted to the concerned
(12 of 12) [CRLA-9/1991]
prison for serving out the sentences awarded to them by the trial
court. In case, the appellants fail to surrender within next thirty
days, the trial court shall forthwith secure their presence by
issuing warrants of arrest.
Record be returned to the trial court immediately.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
4-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
