State Of Rajasthan vs Sadhu Singh And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1084 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002154]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 421/1992

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Sadhu Singh S/o Veer Singh, b/c Kumhar R/o Village Haripur,

Tehsil Sangaria, District Ganganagar

2. Bhola Ram S/o Poonu Ram Ram b/c Bazigar R/o Village

Haripur, Tehsil Sangaria, District Ganganagar

3. Mal Singh S/o Kripal Singh, b/c Jat Sikh R/o Village Haripur,

Tehsil Sangaria, District Ganganagar

4. Mani Ram S/o Sahi Ram, b/c Kumhar R/o Village Haripur,

Tehsil Sangaria, District Ganganagar.

----Respondents

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 307/1992

1. Sadhu Singh S/o Shri Veer Singh, b/c Kumhar R/o Haripura,

Tehsil Sangaria, District Sri Ganganagar

2. Mani Ram S/o Shri Sahi Ram, b/c Kumhar R/o Village

Haripura, Tehsil Sangaria, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Bhola Ram S/o Poonu Ram Ram b/c Bazigar R/o Village

Haripura, Tehsil Sangaria, District Ganganagar

----Appellants Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

[2023/RJJD/002154] (2 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

For Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram, : Mr. Ramandeep Singh Mal Singh and Mani Ram For State : Mr. B. R. Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

27/01/2023 By the Court (Per Hon'ble Vijay Bishnoi, J)

These two appeals have been filed against the judgment

dated 07.08.1992 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as

'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.40/1991, whereby the trial

court has acquitted appellant/respondents Mal Singh, Sadhu

Singh, Bhola Ram and Mani Ram from the offences punishable

under Section 302/34 IPC and for the offences punishable under

Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short 'the SC/ST Act'), however, convicted the

appellants/respondents Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram and Mani Ram

for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part 2 IPC and

sentenced them for 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one

months' simple imprisonment.

The appeal No.421/1992 has been filed on behalf of the

State of Rajasthan, whereas the appeal No.307/1992 has been

preferred on behalf of appellants/respondents Sadhu Singh, Bhola

Ram and Mani Ram.

[2023/RJJD/002154] (3 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

It is noticed that during the pendency of the present appeals,

appellant/respondent Bhola Ram died and appeals qua him were

abated vide order dated 17.01.2000 by this Court, whereas both

the appeals against the appellant/respondent Sadhu Singh have

been abated on 12.12.2022 while noticing that he has expired on

05.08.2009.

Now, the present appeals remain in relation to the appellants

Mani Ram and Mal Singh.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan

(Ex./2) of Hansraj, the police registered an FIR against the

appellant/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections

365, 307 and 323/34 IPC, however, after registration of FIR,

Hansraj died, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was also

added. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the

appellant/respondents and the trial court framed charges against

appellant/respondent Mani Ram for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and framed charges against the appellants Sadhu

Singh, Bhola Ram and Mal Singh for the offence punishable under

Section 302/34 and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)

(V) of the SC/ST Act.

To prove the charges against the appellant/respondents, the

prosecution produced as many as 9 witnesses and also got

exhibited several documents. The statements of the

appellant/respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

and in defence D.W.-1 Gola Devi was also produced on behalf of

the appellant/respondents.

[2023/RJJD/002154] (4 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

The trial court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the

prosecution as well as by the defence and after hearing the

counsel for the parties has passed the impugned judgment.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has

grossly erred in acquitting the appellant/respondents from the

offence punishable under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC and under

Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that the trial

court has also grossly erred in acquitting the appellant/respondent

Mal Singh from the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

It is argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the

appellant/respondents beyond reasonable doubt, but the trial

court has erred in holding that the appellant/respondents had no

intention to kill the deceased, but only had knowledge that the

injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased with iron rod and

stick might result into his death. It is also submitted that it is not

in dispute that the deceased was a member of the scheduled caste

community and the appellant/respondents being the residents of

the same village were aware about his caste and as such, the

offence punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act is

perfectly made out and proved against the appellant/respondents,

but the trial court has illegally acquitted them from the said

charges. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that the

impugned judgment may be set aside and the

appellant/respondents may suitably be punished for the charges

framed against them by the trial court.

Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Ramandeep Singh appearing

for the respondents/appellant has opposed the submissions of the

learned Public Prosecutor and argued that the trial court has not

[2023/RJJD/002154] (5 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents/appellant

from the offences punishable under Section 302 and 302/34 read

with Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel has argued

that so far as the acquittal of respondent/appellant Mal Singh from

the offence under Section 302/34 IPC is concerned, the same does

not suffer from any illegality because the prosecution has failed to

prove the said charge against the respondent Mal Singh. It is

submitted that respondent Mal Singh was not named in the FIR

and later on he was falsely implicated and the trial court after

analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution has rightly

acquitted him from the offence punishable under Section 302/34

IPC.

Learned counsel has further submitted that since the

respondents/appellant Sadhu Singh and Bhola Ram have died and

the appeals preferred by them have already been abated, there is

no requirement to make any submission on behalf of them,

however, the learned counsel has argued that so far as findings of

the trial court of holding the appellant/respondent Mani Ram guilty

for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 2 IPC is

concerned, he is not challenging the said finding, but only praying

that the sentence of 5 years awarded to appellant Mani Ram by

the trial court is too harsh and the same may be reduced up to the

period already under gone by the him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

scrutinized the material available on record.

The appeal filed by respondent Sadhu Singh and Bhola Ram

has already been abated due to the their death and, therefore, we

[2023/RJJD/002154] (6 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

are not required to consider about the findings of the trial court in

respect of them.

Now, in the present appeals, we have to analize whether the

prosecution have proved the charges against

appellant/respondents Mani Ram and Mal Singh by producing

cogent and reliable evidence.

First of all, we look into the case of the respondent Mal

Singh. The trial court has acquitted the respondent Mal Singh from

the charges levelled against him while observing that he was not

named by deceased Hansraj in his parcha bayan and he was

implicated in the case at a later stage. No recovery of any weapon

is effected at the instance of Mal Singh. It is to be noticed that in

his parcha bayan (Ex./2) the deceased Hansraj had named Sadhu

Singh, Mani Ram and Bhola Singh, but has not specifically named

respondent Mal Singh and stated that along with the above-named

three persons, one unknown person was also present. Though

P.W.-2 Prahalad, in his court statement, has stated that when he

and deceased Hansraj were heading towards their house, then

suddenly the accused persons, namely, Sadhu Singh, Bhola Ram,

Mani Ram and Mal Singh came there and caught hold of deceased

Hansraj; they assaulted him and, thereafter, forcibly took him

away in the house of Sadhu Singh and mercilessly assaulted him.

However, the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of

P.W.-2 while observing that his presence at the scene of crime is

doubtful and he cannot be treated as an eye-witness of the

alleged incident. Except P.W.-2, no other independent witness has

been produced by the prosecution, who could witness the said

incident. The prosecution has failed to produce any other

[2023/RJJD/002154] (7 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

incriminating evidence to prove the charge against

appellant/respondent - Mal Singh. Hence, we are of the opinion

that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting

the appellant/respondent - Mal Singh from the charges levelled

against him vide impugned judgment.

So far as the case of the appellant/respondent - Mani Ram is

concerned, in his court statement recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C., he himself had admitted that he assaulted the deceased

with an iron rod because he entered into the house of Sadhu

Singh with intention to kidnap Sadhu Singh's daughter. It is to be

noticed that Sadhu Singh had reported to the Police that the

deceased entered into their house and was armed with a 'shela' (a

kind of sharp edged agriculture equipment) and caught hold of his

daughter and when she raised cry, he and the other persons

rescued her and had beaten the deceased and at present, he is

lying in his house. The said information given by Sadhu Singh was

recorded by the Police in daily diary (roj namcha) and exhibited as

Exp./18.

The trial court has also noticed that all the injuries on the

body of the deceased are on his legs, though, the injuries are

grievous in nature, however, if the injury No.9 would not have

been inflicted, the life of the deceased could have been saved.

Having gone through the above piece of evidence, we are

also of the opinion that from the said evidence, it can be gathered

that the appellant/respondents had no intention to kill the

deceased, but certainly, had knowledge that the injuries inflicted

by them may cause death of the deceased.

[2023/RJJD/002154] (8 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

In such circumstances, we find no illegality in the conclusion

arrived by the trial court that the appellant/respondent Mani Ram

is guilty of committing offence under Section 304 Part 2 IPC and

not of 302 IPC.

So far as the acquittal of the appellant/respondent for the

offence punishable under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act is

concerned, we also agree with the conclusion arrived at by the

trial court. Hence, the same does not call for any interference.

It is noticed that the incident is of the year 1991 and had

taken place on the spur of the moment when the

appellants/respondents saw the deceased in their house in the

night and they attacked the deceased while apprehending that he

may cause harm to the daughter of Sadhu Singh. The

appellant/respondents were not armed with deadly weapons and

injury inflicted on the body of the deceased was not on any vital

part but on leg. Mani Ram inflicted the injury to the deceased with

'sabal' (an iron rod), which is also used for agricultural purposes

and is available in almost every agriculturist's house. From the

arrest memo, it can be gathered that at the time of arrest of

appellant/respondent Mani Ram, he was 29 years of age and as

such at present, he is around 60 years of age. He was arrested on

16.07.1991 and remained in custody till the impugned judgment

was passed. His sentence was suspended by this Court on

01.12.1992 and as such, he remained in custody for around one

year and four months.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances

of the case, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of five

years awarded to the appellant/respondent Mani Ram to the

[2023/RJJD/002154] (9 of 9) [CRLA-421/1992]

period of sentence already undergone by him during trial as well

as during the pendency of this appeal.

Ordered accordingly.

In the result, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.421/1992 filed by the

State is dismissed and the D.B. Criminal Appeal No.307/1992

preferred on behalf of Mani Ram is partly allowed. He is on bail,

his bail bonds stand cancelled. He need not surrender.

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.

                                   (FARJAND ALI),J                                           (VIJAY BISHNOI),J


                                    AjaySingh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)