Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harsukh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39360) on 4 September, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:39360]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 222/1996
1. Harsukh Ram S/o Budha Ram, resident of Bansara P.S.
Nagaur, District Nagaur.
2. Nema Ram son of Budha Ram, resident of Bansara P.S.
Nagaur, District Nagaur.
3. Peraj Ram son of Budha Ram, resident of Bansara P.S.
Nagaur, District Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
04/09/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') has been
preferred against the Judgment and sentences dated 25.03.1996
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (hereinafter
referred as 'trial Court') in Session case No.33/1995, whereby the
appellants were convicted as under:-
S.No. Offence Sentence Fine
1. 307/34 IPC 5 years To pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in
Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo six months' R.I.
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (2 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
2. 325/34 IPC 2 Years To pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in
Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo three months' R.I.
3. 323/34 IPC 6 months To pay a fine of Rs.100/-; in
Rigorous default thereof to further
Imprisonment undergo one month R.I.
2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the
complainant - Poora Ram (PW-8) submitted a written report
(Exhibit-P/13) stating inter alia that on 09.07.1995, when he was
returning to his village after selling milk and reached near the
village tank, while Ramniwas S/o Sukha Ram Jat, his uncle Jhumar
Ram were coming from the opposite side, one Massey tractor
being driven by the accused Harsukh Ram with Peraj Ram and
another person sitting in the tractor approached at a very high
speed. Said Harsukh Ram with an intention to kill the injured Ram
Niwas followed Ram Niwas and rode the tractor over him and
thereafter, turned the tractor back and trampled the injured Ram
Niwas with the wheels of the tractor, which caused multiple
injuries on various parts of his body, including head and right leg
resulting in profused bleeding.
3. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet implicating
the appellants for various offences and the trial court; after
framing charges commenced trial.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, the following persons appeared
in the witness box:-
Navlaram Bheel (PW-1), Leelaram (PW-2), Dhagla Ram (PW-3),
Lakha Ram (PW-4), Dr. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5), Dr. Jagdish
Narayan Mathur (PW-6), Ganpat Singh (PW-7), Poora Ram (PW-
8), Harka Ram son of Poona Ram (PW-9), Ram Niwas (PW-10),
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (3 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
Hanuman Ram (PW-11), Madho Singh (PW-12), Madan Ram (PW-
13), Harka Ram son of Tilok Ram (PW-14), Radha Kishan (PW-15),
Sukha Ram (PW-16), Devkaran (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-
18).
5. Apart from the oral testimony, various documents were
produced to prove the charges; the appellants, however, did not
state anything substantial in their explanation under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C.. On appraisal of the oral and ocular evidence, the
trial court found that the appellants came with a common
intention to murder the injured Ram Niwas (PW-10) and
repeatedly rode the tractor over him, due to which, he suffered
multiple injuries on his legs, hands and ribs out of which some
were grave.
6. The injured (PW-10) and complainant (PW-8) appeared in
the witness box and supported the prosecution version. Apart
from PW-8 and PW-10, two other persons, namely Devkaran (PW-
17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-18) were also examined, who too
supported the prosecution version as eye-witness. Oral testimony
of these witnesses remained uncontroverted despite attempts
being made by the counsel for the accused persons during cross
examinations of there witnesses.
7. The doctors (PW-5 and PW-6) appeared in the witness box
and deposed that there were various injuries suffered by the
injured. While exhibiting the X-ray report, Dr. Jagdish Narayan
Mathur (PW-6) and Dr. M.L. Choudhary (PW-5) stated that as per
X-ray report (Exhibit-P/12), the injured had suffered following
injuries:-
"1. Swelling with a lacerated wound measuring 4 x 0.5 cm,
extending deep to the bone located on the right leg.
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (4 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
2. Abrasion measuring 3 x 2 cm, reddish in color.
3. Abrasion measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm over the right ankle joint.
4. Lacerated wound measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left leg.
5. Abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the right forearm, near
the wrist joint.
6. Abrasion measuring 2 x 2 cm on the posterior aspect of the
right arm.
7. Irregular abrasion measuring 4 x 4 cm on the dorsal aspect
of the left hand.
8. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm, reddish in color, on the
right side of the neck.
9. Swelling measuring 2 x 1 cm on the mandible of the right
side.
10. Abrasion measuring 1 x 0.5 cm above the right eye.
11. Abrasion measuring 12 x 7 cm on the posterior aspect of
the left side of the back.
12. Abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the nose."
8. It was also deposed by Dr. M.L. Chaudhary (PW-5) that the
right leg got fractured and injury No.11 shows fracture in the 5 th,
6th and 7th ribs. The said witness (PW-5) produced and exhibited X-
ray plate (Exhibit-P/11) and the consequential report (P/12).
9. In light of the deposition of the doctors and oral testimony of
the witnesses, the trial court concluded that the appellant Harsukh
Ram and other accused persons came with a common intention
and appellant Nos.2 and 3 instigated appellant No.1 - Harsukh
Ram to run the tractor over the injured, so as to kill him. The trial
court convicted all the appellants under Section 307 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to
undergo five years' imprisonment along with other sentences,
which were to run simultaneously.
10. Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants argued
that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellants for the
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and an
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (5 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
incident which was apparently an accident has been taken to be
an attempt of murder.
11. She argued that the oral and documentary evidence clearly
show that it was a case of simple accident, and that the
prosecution and the complainant with an oblique motive, falsely
implicated the appellants owing to pre-existing animosity between
the appellants and the injured.
12. She submitted that during his cross examination, the doctor
(PW-6) had opined that if a tractor ran over the ribs of a person,
the ribs would be fractured at multiple points and would be
splintered into pieces, while also accepting the suggestion that
such injuries might have been caused on account of falling over a
stone.
13. She argued that had the appellants, particularly appellant
No.1 any intention to murder, he would not have left the injured
person on the road with a few injuries - they would have killed the
injured then and there.
14. Having said so, learned counsel argued that it was a case of
accident and not an attempt to murder, as has been found by the
trial Court. She alternatively submitted that the incident took
place in the year 1995, when the appellants were young in age
(25-27 years) and got emotionally charged being confronted with
the injured, who had levelled false allegations against them and
their family members, for which, they intended to inflict minor
injuries without there being any motive to murder.
15. She prayed that either benefit of doubt be given to the
appellants or the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced
to the extent of sentence already undergone.
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (6 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
16. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer
made by Ms. Kaushik and submitted that the evidence of the case
clearly establishes that the appellants had rushed towards the
injured person with an attempt to murder him, obviously, on
account of past enmity between the appellants and the injured.
He submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the injured
clearly shows that the appellant had left no stone unturned to
murder the injured and it was only by sheer luck that the injured
survived.
17. He argued that the site inspection report (Exhibit-P/7) so
also the testimonies of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-18 show that the
appellant No.1 had not only hit the injured once but had also
turned the tractor around on 2-3 occasions and run it over the
injured person to murder him.
18. He argued that the trial Court has committed no error of law
or of facts in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the
offence they have commited.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
20. On perusal of the oral testimony of the complainant (PW-8),
it is apparent that he had seen the incident with his eyes and
immediately after the occurrence he went on to lodge a written
complaint. Said complainant (PW-8 - Poora Ram) and the injured
Ram Niwas (PW-10) appeared in the witness box and completely
corroborated the prosecution story in toto, without there being
any major deviation.
21. Apart from them, the prosecution has also brought in two
eye-witnesses, namely Dev Karan (PW-17) and Jhumar Ram (PW-
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (7 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
18) who too had seen the incident. The testimonies of the doctors
(PW-5 and PW-6) show that the injured had suffered multiple
injuries and that his leg, arm and ribs got fractured on account of
the tractor having run over him.
22. Site inspection report and the statement of the Investigating
Officer clearly shows that the tractor had not hit the injured just
once. As a matter of fact there is enough evidence to show that
the appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram, who was on driving seat had
run the tractor over the injured on 2-3 occasions.
23. The fact that there was previous acrimony between the
appellants and the injured person has also come on record.
Therefore, the motive of the appellants and their intention to
cause fatal injuries to the injured is writ large. The manner and
the speed at which the tractor had approached the injured person
coupled with the fact that the tractor was run over the injured on
2-3 occasions clearly shows that it was not an accident and the
appellant had the guilty animus or intention to murder the injured
Ram Niwas.
24. This Court is of the view that the overt act of driving and
running the tractor over the injured person was accomplished by
appellant No.1 - Harsukh Ram; the other appellants who were
accompanying him on the tractor were instigating him.
25. This Court is, therefore firmly of the view that the conclusion
drawn by trial court in convicting the appellants under Section
307, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is
the only possible conclusion.
26. Considering that a period of 30 years has passed since the
incident took place, this Court feels that the sentence awarded to
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (8 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
the appellants deserves to be modified and reduced in the interest
of justice, more particularly, in light of the judgment dated
21.12.1988 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of
Mohammad Yasin Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.825/1998) and judgment dated 13.12.1989 passed by
this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.122/1986).
27. In view of what has been observed in preceding paras,
though the conviction of the appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram under
Section 307, 323 and 325 and that of the appellant No.2 and 3
Nema Ram and Peraj Ram under Section 307, 323 and 325 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld, sentence
awarded to the appellant Nos.2 and 3 is reduced to the extent of
sentence already undergone subject to a condition that both of
them pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The sentence awarded to the
appellant No.1 Harsukh Ram who had committed the act of driving
the tractor in question is reduced to two years, but the fine is
enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
28. Bail bonds of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 is hereby cancelled.
So far as the appellant No.1 is concerned, he is directed to
surrender before the trial court within 30 days for serving out the
remaining part of sentence. In case, the appellant No.1- Harsukh
Ram fails to surrender before the trial court within the stipulated
period as aforesaid, he be arrested and sent to the jail to complete
the total sentence of two years.
29. The aforesaid sentence of two years shall be composite
sentence for all the offence viz 307, 323 and 325 of the Indian
penal code.
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39360] (9 of 9) [CRLA-222/1996]
30. The appellants shall have to pay the increased fine within a
period of two months from today.
31. In the event of failure to pay the fine, each of the appellant
shall be subjected to Civil Jail for two months.
32. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
41-Anshul/-
(Uploaded on 08/09/2025 at 03:36:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
