Dismissed

Bharmal Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2017CRLA/1007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the S.B. Criminal Appeal challenging the trial court's order in Sessions Case No.40/2013, which acquitted respondents of culpable homicide (Section 307 IPC) but convicted them of assault (Sections 323, 325 IPC) with probation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's acquittal for Section 307 IPC and conviction with probation for Sections 323/325 IPC.

Bharmal Ram Vs State and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1007 / 2016 Bharmal Ram S/o Ramchand Jat, Aged About 55 Years, Rangala, Tehsil Rangala, Distt. Jalore (raj)

¶3

----Appellant Versus

¶4

The State of Rajasthan

¶5

Rana Ram S/o Dewaji Jat, Ghanchida, P.s. Sindhari, Distt. Barmer At Present R/o Village Rangala, P.s. Bagoda, Distt. Jalore.

¶6

Peera Ram S/o Shri Rana Ram Jat, Ghanchida, P.s. Sindhari, Distt. Barmer At Present R/o Village Rangala, P.s. Bagoda, Distt. Jalore.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam S Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶10

13/04/2017

¶11

This criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.40/2013 whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 307, 307/34 IPC, however, convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 323/34, 325/34 IPC but instead of sentencing them has granted benefit of probation to them.

¶12

(2 of 3)

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant Veerma Ram was brutally asaulted by the accused respondents and he has received six injuries in all. It is also argued that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the accused respondents had assaulted Veerma Ram with the intention to kill him, however the learned trial court has grossely erred in acquitting the accused respondents from the offences punishable under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

¶15

The trial court has taken into consideration that the injured PW-4 Veerma Ram has received six injuries in all and out of them four are simple in nature and injuries No.2 and 3 are grievous in nature but not on the vital part of the body. The trial court has also taken into consideration that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused respondent Peera Ram had inflicted injury on the head of PW-4 Veerma Ram by an axe as the injury on the head of Peera Ram was crushed wound, which as per medical report was caused by blunt object and is simple in nature.

¶16

After taking into consideration the said prosecution evidence in detail the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC.

¶17

The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the agricultural field, where the incident took place, is a joint Khatedari of the accused respondents and the complainant., hence the offences punishable under Section 447 IPC is also not made

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

out.

¶20

After taking into consideration the injuries received by the injured on his body the trial court has convicted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 323/34, 325/34 IPC, however, granted the benefit of probation to them. The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that accused Rama Ram was about 61 years of age and remained in custody for about 5 months during trial. It has also been observed by the trial court that the accused respondent Peera Ram remained in cusotdy for about four months. It has also been taken into consideration that the accused respondents are agriculturists and are poor and the complainant and the accused respondents are belonging to the same family. While granting probation to the accused respondents, the trial court has directed them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- each to the injured Veerma Ram.

¶21

Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality in the same.

¶22

Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶23

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶24

Gaurav

Bharmal Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharmal Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pyarelal Vs State

Kana Ram Vs State and Ors.

State Vs Rituraj Singh and Anr.

Aziza Khan Sindhi Vs Abrar Ahmed

Aziaz Khan Sindhi Vs Abrar Ahmed and Ors.

State Vs Rana Ram and Anr.