Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Jagdish (2025:Rj-Jd:4751-Db) on 24 January, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 501/1999

State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Jagdish son of Ramaji Balai, resident of Khutawas Police Station,
Salamgarh, District Chittorgarh.
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Gopal Sandu



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI


                                JUDGMENT

24/01/2025

The State of Rajasthan has challenged the judgment dated

14th May 1999 in Sessions Case No.134/1995 by which Jagdish

son of Ramaji Balai has been convicted and sentenced to the

period of sentence already undergone by him under section 304

Part II and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of ₹5,000/- with

default stipulation to serve six months' Simple Imprisonment and;

Jujhar son of Ramaji Balai was convicted under section 323 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period of sentence

undergone by him.

2. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate

General and Mr. Gopal Sandu, the learned counsel for the

respondents inform the Court that the convicted accused persons

did not challenge the aforementioned judgment of conviction

dated 14th May 1999.

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is contained in the

written report of Gautam lodged at Salmagad Police Station on 4 th

July 1995 around midnight. On the basis of the said written

report, a crime was registered against Jagdish, Jujhar, Kanta Bai

and Shyamu Bai under sections 302, 307, 323 and 341 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the informant,

there was an incident of maarpeet between Jagdish and Madan Lal

in the morning of 3rd July 1995. In the same evening around 7 PM,

Gautam and Keshuram who is the younger brother of Madan lal

had enquired from Jagdish regarding the incident of maarpeet

whereupon, Jujhar, Kanta Bai and Shyamu Bai carrying Lathi and

Kulhadi came there and started maarpeet. This is the case of the

prosecution that Jagdish caused a bleeding head injury to the

informant with a Kulhadi and he also assaulted Keshu Ram on his

head. In the meantime, Madan Lal also arrived there and the

accused persons caused injuries to him. This is the further case of

the prosecution that on hearing halla when the co-villagers

Narayan, Raghunath, Ramsukh and Puna came there the accused

persons fled away. Thereafter, Keshu Ram was taken to the

hospital on a bullock cart but he succumbed to the injuries on the

way.

4. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid in the Court

against Jujhar for committing the offence under section 323 of the

Indian Penal Code and against Jagdish under sections 302 and

324 of the Indian Penal Code. As noticed above, these

respondents were sent up for trial on the charge of committing

such offences but they denied the charge and claimed trial.

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

5. This is the observation of the District and Sessions Judge at

Pratapgarh that Ramsukh is the eye-witness whose testimony was

corroborated by Ratan Lal, Narayan Balai and Madan Balai. This is

also a matter of record that there was no charge framed against

the accused persons for committing murder of Keshuram with the

aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As many as 18

witnesses were produced in the trial to support the aforesaid

charges framed against the accused persons and they supported

the prosecution case. The other witnesses also supported the

prosecution case to a certain extent. The Investigating officer

came to the witness box as P.W.16 and tendered evidence as to

the registration of the First Information Report, Postmortem and

recording of statement of the witnesses under section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. However, no evidence was tendered

on behalf of the accused persons in the defence. Having regard to

the materials laid in the trial of Sessions Case No.134/1995, the

District and Sessions Judge held that Jujhar is liable to be

convicted under section 323 and Jagdish is the person who is

liable for causing death of Keshu Ram but not amounting to

murder.

6. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate

General contends that the nature of injury caused on the head of

Keshu Ram is sufficient to draw an inference that Jagdish had the

requisite intention as envisaged under Clause 1stly of section 300

of the Indian Penal Code and therefore he is liable to be convicted

and sentenced under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The

learned Additional Advocate General further submits that Jagdish

who had undergone imprisonment for about three years and ten

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

months was let off lightly by awarding a sentence of period

already undergone with a fine of ₹5,000/-. This is the submission

of the learned Additional Advocate General that the judgment of

conviction and the order of sentence both dated 14 th May 1999 are

liable to interference also for this reason.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Sandu, the learned counsel for

the respondents would urge that the manner of occurrence does

not indicate that assault by Jagdish was premeditated and it was

only at the spur of moment and in the heat of passion that Jagdish

gave Kulhadi blow on the head of Keshu Ram. Supporting the

judgment in Sessions Case No.134/1995, Mr. Gopal Sandu, the

learned counsel for the respondents submits that the offence

committed by Jagdish would therefore fall under Exception 4 to

section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and he was rightly sentenced

to the period already undergone which was three years and ten

months and that would be around five years with remission.

8. No matter that the complainant P.W.10 Gautam turned

hostile when he was called in the witness box to tender evidence,

the testimony of P.W.4 Ramsukh inspires confidence of the Court.

He was rightly found by the trial Judge a trustworthy and reliable

witness. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that his house was

at a distance of about 40 feet from the place of occurrence. He

further stated that Sita Ram and Madan Lal were also living in the

nearby houses. According to him, it was the evening of 3 rd July

1995 and he was sitting outside his house from where he could

see the occurrence. In our opinion, being a co-villager and present

in his house, P.W.4 had observed the occurrence. In fact, there is

no challenge by the defence to his statement that he was present

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

in the house around 7 PM on 7 th July 1995. We further find that

P.W.2 and P.W.3 had also supported him on the point of Keshu

Ram having been injured with a Kulhadi which had got stuck in his

head. Though it seems that the prosecution did not examine a few

material witnesses in the trial but the testimony of P.W.4 seems to

be sufficient to hold that Jagdish and Jujhar were involved in the

crime. The Indian Evidence Act does not recognize the plurality of

witnesses and the law is quite well settled that conviction of an

accused can be recorded on the basis of testimony of a single

witness. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no

particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for

the proof of any fact. We may also refer to the decision in "Shivaji

Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra" 1973 SCC (2)

2662 wherein the Hon'be Supreme Court held as under:-

".... 19. Now let us sum up the whole case in the light of the evidence we have found to be of worth. We must observe that even if a witness is not reliable, he need not be false and even if the police have trumped up one witness or two or has embroidered the story to give a credible look to their case that cannot defeat justice if there is clear and unimpeachable evidence making out the guilt of the accused. Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between may be and must be is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Informing ourselves of these important principles we analyse the evidence found good by us. In our view there is only one eyewitness, P.W. 5, Vilas. Even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given on sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. We are persuaded that the PW 5 is a witness for truth but in

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

view of the circumstances that he is interested, we would still want corroboration in this case to reassure ourselves. And that we have in this case. ....."

9. P.W.8 Dr. Sanjay Bhargav tendered his opinion that Keshu

Ram had suffered grievous injury caused with sharp cutting

weapon and his death was due to head injury. To recapitulate, the

incident breaks into two parts. In the first part there was a quarrel

between Jagdish and Madan in the morning of 3 rd July 1995. The

second incident in which Keshu Ram was grievously injured and

Madan and Gautam also suffered injuries at the hands of the

accused person occurred around 7.00 PM in the same evening.

This is the case of the prosecution that Gautam and Keshu Ram

had gone to the house of Jagdish. From the materials on record,

we do not find that the prosecution even made a faint suggestion

that Jagdish was holding any weapon. This is also not the case

projected by the prosecution that Madan, Kanta Bai and Shyamu

Bai who were allegedly carrying Lathi and Kulhadi gave Kulhadi to

Jagdish or he took Kulhadi from one of them and started

assaulting Gautam and Keshu Ram. Having regard to the fact that

Jagdish was not carrying any weapon when the altercation started

and the prosecution did not clearly and correctly projected the

case in the Court, we hold that Jagdish was not liable to be

convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This

acquittal appeal on this ground is therefore dismissed.

10. Having thus examined the materials on record, we approve

the finding recorded in the judgment dated 14 th May 1999 that

Jagdish is liable to be convicted and sentenced under section 304

Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

[2025:RJ-JD:4751-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-501/1999]

11. As to inadequacy of sentence, we are inclined to refer to the

decision in "Jaswinder Singh (Dead) through Legal Representative

v. Navjot Singh Sidhu & Ors." 2022 AIR SC 2441 wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

".... 25. We would like to deliberate a little more in detail on the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment. While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large. Punishments are awarded not because of the fact that it has to be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, rather having its due impact on the society; while undue harshness is not required but inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large. .... "

12. However, having regard to the fact that the First Information

Report was lodged more than quarter a century in the past and

the judgment of conviction as well as this criminal appeal both of

the year 1999 are pending since then, we are not inclined to

interfere with the award of sentence after so many years. Keeping

in mind the trauma and mental agony suffered by the respondents

on account of the pending appeal, we think that award of

punishment of the period undergone which is about 4 years and

that would be about 5 years with remission is adequate

punishment. On awarding punishment of 5 years, we have in our

mind the judgment in "Bunnilal Choudhary v. State of Bihar" AIR

2006 SC 2531.