Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhama Ram And Ors vs State on 27 May, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988
1. Dhama Ram s/o Moti Ram,
2. Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram (appeal abated)
3. Khajan Ram s/o Moti Ram
All Residents of 4 L.K.S., District Sri Ganganagar.
(At present lodged in Central Jail at Bikaner).
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988
1. Taru Ram s/o Chuni Ram
2. Luna Ram s/o Chuni Ram
3. Jaisam Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)
4. Uttama Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)
5. Makhan Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)
All Residents of 4 LKS, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubham Ojha (Amicus Curiae in
CRLA No.97/1988)
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich (in CRLA
No.76/1988)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Vinod Bhadu
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
Reserved on 01/05/2024
Pronounced on 27/05/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have
been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following
reliefs:
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be accepted and accused appellants may be acquitted
of the charges levelled against him and they be set at liberty."
2. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year
1986 and the present appeals have been pending since the year
1988.
3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.1988 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, Camp
Suratgarh, in Sessions Case 30/86 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Dhamaram & Ors.), whereby the accused-appellants Dhama Ram
and Khajan Ram have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and
fine with default clause. Accused-appellants Taru Ram and Luna
Ram have been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC and sentenced for different
period of imprisonments, ranging to maximum one year's rigorous
imprisonment.
3.1. Other accused Kartar and Jag Ram, though were convicted
for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC, were
released, while extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958.
3.2. Accused-appellant Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram had expired on
07.11.2005 and accused-appellants Jaisa Ram, Uttama Ram and
Makhan Ram had also expired, and therefore, the appeals qua
them stood dismissed as abated.
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.
Shubham Ojha, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Bhagat Dhadhich,
learned counsel for the appellants, are that on 21.03.1986, in the
morning, complainant Chetan Ram (PW-1) submitted an oral
information before the concerned police station, to the effect that
on the previous day i.e. 20.03.1986, after sunset, while the sons
of Hari Ram (brother of the informant) were returning back home,
on the way back, one Ram and Khajan indulged into a fight.
4.1. As per the informant, he was told by Ram that when he
picked up some of Grams (Chana) from the crop of Ramchandra,
he (Ram) was abused by Khajan. Thereupon, Hari Ram went to
Makhan Ram and complained to him about the same, whereupon,
Makhan Ram threatened of killing Hari Ram. Thereafter, at about
7:00 p.m., Khajan, Dhamaram and Makhanram, armed with
gandasi, Kasiya and lathi, came to Hari Ram and starting beating
him in front of his own house. Dhamaram inflicted gandasi blow
on the head of Hari Ram, as a result whereof, Hari Ram fell down;
other accused persons also inflicted blows on Hari Ram.
Thereupon, the informant himself, his wife-Sarbati, Het Ram,
Pappu and Banwari (sons of Hari Ram) and Om Prakash (son of
informant) rushed to the place of incident. On this, Lunia, Taru,
Kartar, Utmaram, Jaisaram, Makhanram and Jagram, armed with
lathis also reached there.
4.2. The informant further stated that he and his family alongwith
others, tried to rescue Hari Ram, however, they were also beaten
by the accused persons, in the course whereof, the informant and
others also sustained injuries. The informant and others, while
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
telling the accused persons that Hari Ram is dead, pleaded to
leave him, whereupon the accused persons left the place of the
incident. As per the informant, Hari Ram was in an unconscious
state and his condition became critical, whereupon he was
admitted in a hospital on 21.03.1986 itself. As per the informant,
the said incident was a result of enmity between Hari Ram and the
accused persons, which prompted them to make efforts to kill Hari
Ram.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR
bearing No.29/86 (Ex.D-2) dated 21.03.1986 was registered at
Police Station, Pilibanga, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences
under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 323 IPC, and the
investigation accordingly commenced thereafter. However, on the
same date i.e. 21.03.1986, Hari Ram breathed his last in NSA
Ward. Thus, after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet
against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302,
302/149, 323, 323/149 & 148 IPC.
6. The learned Trial Court framed the charge against accused-
appellant Dhamaram and Khajanaram for the offence under
Section 324 IPC, whereas against other accused persons, charge
was framed for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC, and the
said charges were read over to the accused-appellants; the
accused-appellant denied the same, and sought due trial, and the
trial accordingly commenced thereafter before the learned Trial
Court.
7. During the course of trial, the evidence of 11 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 36 documents were exhibited on
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
behalf of the prosecution, whereas, the accused-appellants
exhibited 7 documents in support of defence; whereafter, the
accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence and their false
implication in the criminal case in question.
8. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties
as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record,
the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 18.01.1988, against which the
present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-
appellants.
9. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988, learned counsel for
the accused-appellants-Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram submitted
that the injury caused by weapon does not match with the medical
report and contradiction between the statements of the eye
witnesses and the medical report is apparent on the face of
record.
9.1. It was further submitted that the police started the
investigation before registration of the FIR, and after registration
of the FIR, the report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on the
next day, and therefore no explanation was furnished by the
prosecution in this regard.
9.2. It was also submitted that P.W-1 Chetan Ram in his testimony
stated that the accused broke the teeth and jaw of the deceased,
but the same did not come in the medical report of the deceased,
and therefore, there is a clear contradiction in the statements of
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
PW-1. It was further submitted that all the eye witnesses are
family members of the deceased, and therefore, the is no
independent eye witness to the incident in question.
9.3. It was also submitted that there was no electricity at the
place of incident and the incident had happened at around 7 PM,
and therefore, the same raises suspicion about happening of the
alleged incident, and further casts a shadow of doubt on the
credibility of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was
further submitted that in the entire story of the prosecution, there
is nothing which could indicate the intention/motive of the accused
to commit the murder of deceased-Hari Ram, and therefore, the
offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out against the
accused-appellant.
9.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Stalin Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police
(Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2020, decided on 09.09.2020)
10. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, learned counsel for
accused-appellants-Taru Ram and Luna Ram, submitted that the
accused-Taru & Luna Ram were not the main accused persons, as
to causing injury to the deceased, and they have been convicted
for the injury caused to the family members of the deceased,
which being simple in nature, were not dangerous to life.
10.1. It was further submitted that as per the prosecution story,
the accused reached the place of the alleged incident at a later
point of time, and therefore, it cannot be said that he was having
common intention alongwith other accused persons to commit the
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
crime in question. It was also submitted that it is not possible as
there is no recovery of weapon from the both accused, therefore,
it cannot be said that the injuries in question were caused by
them.
10.2. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court vide
the impugned judgment extended the benefit of probation to
accused-Kartar and Jagram. It was also submitted that accused
Taru Ram is 71 years old and Luna Ram 69 years old and both
have undergone the judicial custody from 01.04.1986 to
05.06.1986 against the 1 year's sentence; the case is 38 years
old and both the accused have no criminal antecedents.
10.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Meh Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan (D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 271/1982, decided on
05.11.2007).
11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State, while opposing the aforesaid submissions
made on behalf of the accused-appellants in D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 97/1988, submitted that there are injured eye-
witnesses of the incident, who clearly supported the prosecution
story, during the examination, and no contradiction was found in
statements of those witnesses.
11.1. It was further submitted that all the accused were having
motive to commit the murder, as they were carrying the weapons
to commit the crime in question, and being driven by such motive,
they caused injuries to deceased-Hari Ram, as a result whereof he
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
died, and therefore, the accused-appellants were rightly
prosecuted under Sections 302 & 302/32 IPC respectively and
punished with Life Imprisonment.
12. As against the submissions made on behalf of the accused-
appellants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that both the accused, namely, Taru Ram
and Luna Ram caused injuries to the injured eye-witnesses and
the same was recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment.
12.1. It was also submitted that the accused came to the place of
incident armed with lathi and other things, to cause injury and the
said injury caused by them to the witnesses, which is also
reflected in the medical report, and therefore, they were rightly
convicted by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment.
13. In support of such submissions, learned Public Prosecutor
relied upon the following judgments :-
(a) Kartik Malhar Vs State of Bihar 2017 (11) SC 129;
(b) Dilip Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364;
(c) Appabhai & Anr Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696;
(d) Alladeen Vs State of Rajasthan 2016 (2) Cr.L.R (Raj) 638
(D.B.) and;
(e) Abdul Sayed Vs State of Rajasthan 1979 Cr.L.R (Raj) 43
(D.B.)
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
15. This Court observes that in the instant appeals, the accused-
appellants have been convicted vide the impugned judgment
dated 18.01.1988 for the offences under Section 302, 302/34,
147, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, and sentenced as above.
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
16. This Court further observes that PW.1-Chetan Ram
(complainant) has rendered the contradictory statement in the
cross-examination, wherein he has stated that the concerned
Station House Officer (S.H.O) firstly came to the hospital and then
took the thumb impression on the report, but apart from that, the
statements of the PW.-11-Prithvi Singh (Investigation Officer)
were recorded in which he has stated that the FIR was lodged at
4.15 AM and then the investigation commenced, and therefore,
the said minor contradiction in the deposition of PW.1 cannot
question the veracity of the prosecution case.
17. This Court also observes that there are 5 eye-witnesses in
the case i.e. PW.1-Chetan Ram, P.W.2-Banwari Lal, PW.3-Om
Prakash, PW.4-Het Ram, and PW.10-Sarbati Devi. This Court has
carefully perused the statement of the said witnesses.
17.1. PW.1 stated that he was at home along with his wife
(PW.10) and son (PW.3). He has further stated firstly, the
accused-appellants-Dhama Ram, Khajan Ram & Makhan Ram s/o
Moti Ram reached the place of incident and thereafter, the other
accused came armed with weapon and caused the injuries to the
deceased.
17.2. P.W.2, & PW.4 (sons of the deceased) stated that on the
previous day, while they were returning back home, on the way
back, one Ram and Khajan were seen to have indulged into a fight
regarding to picking up (Upaad) the Gram (Chana) from the fields
of Ramchandra; thereafter, deceased-Hari Ram went to accused-
Makhan Ram and complained to him about the same, whereupon,
Makhan Ram threatened of killing Hari Ram. Thereafter, at about
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
7:00 p.m., Khajan, Dhamaram and Makhanram, armed with
gandasi, Kasiya and lathi, and caused the injury to the deceased
and when they came to the place of the incident, the deceased
was seen to have fallen down and that they saw the entire
incident.
17.3. P.W.3, & PW.10 stated that when they heard a noise, they
immediately reached the place of the incident and they saw the
accused causing injury to the deceased by weapons.
18. This Court further observes that when the eye witnesses i.e.
PW.1, P.W.2, PW.3, PW.4, and PW.10 intervened in the fight to
protect the deceased from the accused-appellants, then the
accused-appellant caused the injuries to them as well and the said
injuries were recorded in evidence, and therefore, the same leaves
no room for any doubt that the said eye witnesses were present at
the time of commission of the crime in question and, even the
minor contradiction cannot render such statements as unworthy of
being believed, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal Nath v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1396; relevant portion
whereof is reproduced as hereunder:-
"28. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the
case, both on facts as well as on law. The statement of an
injured eye-witness is an important piece of evidence which
cannot be easily discarded by a Court. Minor discrepancies do
not matter. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC
414 where conviction of the accused by the trial court, inter
alia, under Section 302, was set aside by the High Court on
the so called discrepancies of an injured witness this court
while allowing the State's appeal against the acquittal said
this:
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
"9. The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist,
their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the
first information report, that does not wash away the
effect of the evidence tendered by the injured
witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not
corrode the credibility of an otherwise
acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted
by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the
evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly
inconsequential."
29. The reasons assigned for disbelieving the statement of
PW-2 by the High Court are not correct. The High Court
discredits the statement of PW-2 because of the
discrepancies in her earlier statement given under Section
161 Cr. P.C., and the one given in her examination-in-chief.
This as we have already discussed was not sufficient to
totally discredit an injured eye witness. Apart from this
eye-witness, there were other eyewitnesses as well,
which we have referred above. Further, there is also the
recovery made of the weapons and the blood-stained cloth of
the accused. There is nothing to doubt either the recovery or
the manner in which the recovery has been made. The
conclusion derived by the High Court that the assailants were
not having common intention or common object of killing
deceased Chandernath is not entirely correct."
19. This Court further observes that a perusal of the statements
of PW.6-Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, the injury no.3 was sufficient
to cause the death of the deceased and the injury caused to victim
is clearly inflicted by the weapon of the accused, and therefore,
any minor contradiction between the statements of the eye-
witnesses and medical report, cannot be considered to be a
ground sufficient for aquittal, because the oral testimony is more
important, in the given circumstances, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab,
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
(2012) 10 SCC 476, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as
hereunder:-
"10.So far as the question of inconsistency between the
medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned,
the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence
available is totally irreconcilable with the medical
evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the
event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the
ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value
vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the
oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor
in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the
contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical
evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular
evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be
disbelieved. (Vide State of U.P. v. Hari Chand [(2009) 13
SCC 542: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1112] and Bhajan Singh v.
State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 421 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
241].)"
20. Now comes the issues relating to motive/intention of the
accused, to commit the crime in question, as prior to happening of
the incident in question, a fight took place between the deceased's
family and the accused in relation to picking up (Upaad) of Gram
(Chana) from the fields of Ramchandra, and thereafter, the
accused-appellants Dhama Ram, Khajan Ram and Makhan Ram
came with the weapons i.e. gandasi, Kasiya and lathi and caused
injury to the deceased.
20.1. This Court also observes that as per Ex.P/1-Postmortem
Report, the death of deceased was caused, as a result of his being
in coma due to the injuries in question, but the record does not
indicate any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to
commit the crime in question. This Court further observes that in
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
the entire incident, total 3 injuries were caused, and only injury
no.3 has been stated to be grievous in nature and the deceased
died on the next day. The entire incident in question shows that
there was no prior preparation of committing the murder of the
deceased because the appellants were carrying lathi only, and
therefore, the lack of the prior preparation to commit the murder
does not fulfil the essential ingredients of Section 300 of the IPC,
thus, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC seems
to be not appropriate. As regards the weapons in question, the
same are nothing but tools regularly used for agricultural purposes
in the villages.
21. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to
reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Udham,
(2019) 10 SCC 300, as hereunder:-
"12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analysed on the
touchstone of three tests viz. crime test, criminal test
and comparative proportionality test. Crime test
involves factors like extent of planning, choice of
weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role
of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the
crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment
of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the
criminal, economic conditions or social background of
the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of
defence, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or
any one from the deceased group, adequately
represented in the trial, disagreement by a Judge in the
appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation,
prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and
any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test,
seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the
crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim;
(ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of
humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach."
21.1 This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhanwara
Ram and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 83/1986, decided on 15.09.2022), relevant portion
whereof is reproduced as hereunder-
"38. ...... accused appellant-Babu Ram was 20 years at the
time of incident. Now, they are about 58 and 57 years old
respectively. From a humanitarian perspective, it does not
seem justifiable to send them to jail again, more
particularly considering that they have been entangled in
court proceedings for a long drawn-out period of 36
years. The accused-appellants Bhanwara Ram and Babu Ram
were 21 and 20 years old respectively at the relevant point of
time when the offence was committed, thus, their case can be
considered for extending benefit of probation but since they
have already suffered incarceration for a period of 18 months,
therefore, instead of grant of probation to the accused-
appellants, this Court deems it appropriate to consider their case
for reduction of sentence.
43. As per the overall discussion of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and the observations made herein above, we hold
that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. is not proper and therefore, the findings of the
learned trial Court, to this extent, deserve to be quashed and set
aside. The conviction of the surviving appellants Bhanwara Ram
and Babu Ram is altered from Section 302 read with Section 34
I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
The period of sentence is reduced to the period they have
undergone till now which is around 18 months; which in the firm
opinion of this Court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in
the peculiar circumstances of this case."
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
21.2. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of
Bimal Kumar Khetan Vs. State of Orissa (CRLA Nos. 455 of
2008 and 417 of 2008, decided on 29.09.2023), relevant
portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder-;
"33..........we are inclined to take a lenient view inasmuch as
accused Kantadevi Khetan is presently of advanced age
being nearly 65 years old. Similarly accused Sunil Kumar
Khetan and Sujata Khetan are also aged nearly 50 years
each. All of them were in prison for sometime during trial.
Having regard to the sentence imposed nearly 15 years
ago and also the aforementioned factors, we are of the
considered view that ends of justice would be best served if the
sentence is confined to the period already undergone by them
instead of sending them to jail to serve the remaining part of
their sentence at this distance of time".
22. Apart from the aforesaid, the following are certain prominent
aspects of the case, which need specific mention in the present
adjudication:
(i) The incident in question had happened in the year 1986 and
the FIR in connection therewith was registered on 21.03.1986.
(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
was passed by the learned Trial Court on 18.01.1988.
(iii) The accused-appellant-Dhama Ram was arrested on
01.04.1986 and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial
Court was suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
18.08.1989 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
294/1989, and therefore, he had undergone the custody for a
period of more than 3 years.
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
(iv) The accused-appellant-Khajan Ram was arrested on
01.04.1986 and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial
Court was suspended by this Hon'ble Court on 23.02.1988 passed
in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 68/1988, and therefore,
the said accused-appellant had undergone the custody for almost
2 years.
(v) The age of accused-appellant-Dhama Ram is 75 years and
that of accused-appellant Khajan Ram is 63 years.
23. This Court further observes that apart from the age of both
the accused, i.e. 75 years and 63 years, respectively, they have
undergone the aforesaid imprisonment, and the present appeal is
36 years old, and thus, now it would not be appropriate to sent
back the accused persons in custody at this stage. This Court also
observes that the accused-appellants do not have any criminal
antecedents and have also not violated the conditions of the
orders suspending their sentences, till today.
24. This Court also observes that the alleged act of the
appellants does not fulfil the essential ingredients of Section 300
IPC because in the entire incident, total 3 injuries were caused,
and only injury no.3 has been stated to be grievous in nature and
the deceased died on the next day. Furthermore, the alleged act of
the appellants was not sufficient to cause the death in question, as
the injuries were not imminently dangerous.
24.1. This Court further observes that in the present case, though
the appellants might have the knowledge that the said act would
likely to cause death, but the probability of death was not such,
which could show that the appellants were having the intention to
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
cause death of the deceased. The incident in question, as alleged
to have happened, shows that there was no prior preparation on
the part of the appellants of committing the murder of the
deceased because the appellants were carrying lathi only. Since
the component of intention on the part of the appellants is clearly
absent in the present case, therefore, the same falls within the
definition of Culpable Homicide as provided under Section 299
IPC.
24.2. This Court, while taking into consideration the overall factual
matrix, including the evidence, age of accused, time of incident,
motive behind commission of the crime, precedent laws etc.,
decides both the instant appeals in the following manner.
25. Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988 is
partly allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the surviving
appellants Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram is altered from Section
302 I.P.C. and Section 302/34 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The period of sentence is reduced to
the period they have undergone till now, which in the opinion of
this Court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the peculiar
circumstances of this case. The appellants are on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
26. In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, appellants-Taru
Ram and Luna Ram were convicted and sentenced to one year's
imprisonment as they caused the injury to the victim and they
reached the place of incident at a later point of time, after the
injury was sustained by the deceased.
[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]
26.1. This Court observes that both the accused-appellants have
already undergone the custody from 01.04.1986 to 05.06.1986,
and the appellant-accused-Taru Ram aged about 71 years and
appellant-accused- Luna Ram is 69 years old.
26.2. This Court observes that both the accused have undergone
custody for a period of 2 months and 4 days against the sentence
of one year awarded to them, and that, as per the record, they
are having no criminal antecedents and nor they have violated any
condition of the orders suspending their sentences awarded by the
learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, till today.
26.3. Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988 is
partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of
the accused-appellants Taru Ram and Luna Ram under Sections
143, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded
to the accused-appellants in the said appeal is reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail.
They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
27. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
28. This Court is thankful to Mr. Shubham Ojha, who has
rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the
accused-appellants, in the present adjudication.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
