High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction and probation order. The bench upheld the trial court's finding that appellants were first assailants in a violent agrarian dispute, rejecting claims of a free-fight.
The criminal appeal was disallowed and the judgment of the learned trial court dated 27.2.1996 was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.276/1996
1. Ramkishan S/o Shri Shyonarayan
2. Ramkalyan S/o Shri Shyonarayan
3. Mojiram S/o Shri Ramkishan
4. Shyojiram S/o Shri Ramkishan
5. Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ramkishan
All by-caste Meena R/o Village Enda District Sawaimadhopur.
..Accused Appellants
V/s
The State of Rajasthan
..Non Appellant
Date of Judgment ::: 23rd AUGUST, 2016
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Shri H.S. Sinsinwar), Shri J.S. Rathore), for accused appellants. Shri R.R. Gurjar, Public Prosecutor.
2
that they will maintain peace and good conduct during two years. On depositing the amount, Rs.3,000/- were ordered to be paid to Ramjatan @ Mota and Rs.1,000/-were ordered to be paid to Ramratan. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 12.8.1993 Ram Kishore Meena (PW-5) submitted a written report (Ex.P-3) at Police Station Mallarnadoongar alleging, inter alia, that on the day at about 1½ O'clock he heard a noise of crying and he rushed to an agricultural field where his brother Ram Ratan was harvesting, he saw there that Ram Kishan, Ram Kalyan, Moji Ram, Shyoji Ram, Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ram Kishan, Smt. Kistoori W/o Shri Ram Kalyan and Ms Lotanti D/o Shri Ram Kishan armed with lathies, Gandasi, Karawari (axe) and Dantli, were giving beatings to Ram Ratan and Mota. Appellant Moji Ram gave blow of an axe on head and right shoulder of Mota. Appellant Ram Kalyan gave blow of axe on left leg of Mota. Appellant Shyoji Ram gave blow of lathi on hand and back of Mota. Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ram Kishan gave blow of sickle (Dantli) on right leg of Mota. Accused Ram Kalyan gave a blow of axe (Karwari) on head of Ram Ratan. Accused Ram Kishan also gave a blow of Karwari (axe) on head of Ram Ratan. Complainant Ram Kishore and Sita Ram intervened. Later on, villagers – Phool Chand and Jhandoo also arrived at the place of occurrence. On this information, a formal FIR No. 142/1993 (Ex.P-4) was registered. During investigation, injured were examined by Medical Officer. Site was inspected by police. Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
3
Land record was obtained from the area Patwari. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants. Learned trial court charged the appellants for the offences u/s 307, 307/149, 324, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. Appellants-accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All of them refuted the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Appellantaccused Moji Ram stated, in particular, that when he asked Ram Ratan, Ram Jatan, Ram Kishore, Ram Charan, Babu Lal, Shanker, Ram Bai, Sukhi and Geeta not to cut swallow-wort situated on common boundary wall of agricultural fields of both the parties, then they rebuked him and said that you have damaged the common boundary wall. When accused denied, Ram Jatan gave a blow of axe on him. Ram Ratan beat him with stick. Thereafter, all ran away. When accused cried, Gajanand and Ramhet came there and intervened. In defence, appellant-accused Moji Ram appeared as witness (DW-1) and six documents were exhibited. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court decided the matter vide impugned order dated 27.2.1996 and passed the order of conviction and sentence, as stated above.
the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the genesis of the story in the said incident. Accused appellant Moji Ram also received injuries by sharp-edged weapon. Prosecution did not give any explanation about
4
injury received by the appellant-accused Moji Ram. Learned trial court erred in not extending the right of private defence of a person or property to the accused-appellants. Learned trial court did also not consider the fact that a cross case was registered by the appellantsaccused party against the victims of the instant case. Police after investigation, submitted chargesheet in that matter too. The present case is of free-fight, where both the parties gave beatings to each other. No independent witness has supported the prosecution story. Findings of the learned trial court are based on surmises and conjectures.
5
6
examination of Ram Jatan @ Mota and Ram Ratan and prepared injury reports – Ex.P-4 and Ex. P-5, respectively. Dr. P.C. Gupta (PW-11) has stated that he conducted x-ray of forearm of left hand of Mota and found fracture on ulna bone. X-ray report is Ex. P-8.
7
whereas in the instant FIR, injured are two persons i.e. Ramratan and Ramjatan @ Mota. As per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Mojiram, he received only one simple hurt caused by sharp weapon along with swelling on left shoulder, whereas as per injury report (Ex.D-6) of Ramjatan @ Mota, he received 12 injuries, including one grievous and five simple caused by sharp weapon. As per injury report (Ex.P-7) of Ramratan, he received three simple injuries caused by blunt object. In a situation like this, possibility cannot be ruled out that in the course of scuffle, Mojiram may also have received some injury. But in any case, accused appellants are impeccably proved to be the first assailants and the case is not at all of free-fight between the parties.
(Vijay Kumar Vyas), J.
CHAUHAN/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants for offences under various IPC sections given the alleged free-fight nature.
Whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of private defence given the cross-case proceedings.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's appreciation of evidence and imposition of probation.
Ramkishan S/o Shri Shyonarayan
Ramkalyan S/o Shri Shyonarayan
Mojiram S/o Shri Ramkishan
Shyojiram S/o Shri Ramkishan
Smt. Phula W/o Shri Ramkishan
The State of Rajasthan
VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
