Allowed

Gopal Singh Alias Gopi Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC1 May 2017CRLA/589/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. Finding no intent to cause death (Section 307) and acknowledging a compromise under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court acquitted the appellant of both charges and quashed the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2001 is quashed and set aside, and the appellant is acquitted from all offences.

Gopal Singh Alias Gopi Ram Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 589/2001

¶3

Gopal Singh Alias Gopi Ram son of Shri Baluram, by caste Jat R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar.

¶4

----Accused-Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent __________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For State : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek For Complainant : Mr.Trilok Choudhary

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

Judgment

01/05/2017

BY THE COURT :

The accused-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No.5/2001 whereby the learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for three months and for offence under Section 325 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further suffer imprisonment for one month. It was also ordered that both the

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[CRLA-589/2001]

¶15

substantive sentences would run concurrently.

¶16

Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that FIR No.91/2000 came to be registered for offence under Section 307 IPC against the appellant at Police Station Ranoli (District Sikar) on 16.6.2000 at the instance of complainant-Shri Salagram in which it was alleged that appellant caused injuries to injured-Shri Mohan Lal Choudhary on 15.6.2000 at about 11.00 in the night by running a tractor over him. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC and in order to prove the charges prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case. In defence oral as well as documentary evidence was produced. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as already stated. It is to be noted that during pendency of this appeal the appellant and injured-Shri Mohan Lal entered into compromise and in this regard an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. has been filed on 11.4.2017 whereby it was jointly prayed by them that the appeal may be decided in the light of compromise entered between them. Both of them also filed their affidavit.

¶17

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence available on record including the nature of

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CRLA-589/2001]

¶20

injuries sustained by the injured-Shri Mohanlal in the alleged incident it cannot be said that offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but

¶21

learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the matter in a right perspective. It was further submitted that as per the injury report injured-Shri Mohanlal sustained fracture of tibia fibula bones of his both the legs but merely by that reason it cannot be inferred that appellant was having intention or knowledge that by running over the injured by a tractor death is likely to be caused of injured and in absence of such intention or knowledge offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to be made out. It was submitted that at the most offence under Section 325 IPC can be said to be made out against the appellant for which he has already been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties the appellant is entitled to be acquitted for this offence also.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the injured-Shri Mohanlal submitted that in the light of compromise between the parties an appropriate order may be passed, whereas learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order.

¶23

On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties in the light of evidence available on record, I agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. As per the injury report Ex.P23 and X-ray report Ex.P20 injured-Shri Mohanlal sustained six injuries and fracture of tibia fibula bones of both the legs was detected. It is to

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CRLA-589/2001]

¶26

be noted that no opinion was given by the doctor that the injuries received by the injured were dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Merely because the appellant ran a tractor over the legs of injured it cannot be inferred that he was having an intention or knowledge to cause death of injured and in absence thereof offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and appellant is entitled to be acquitted from it. So far as offence under Section 325 IPC is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that this offence is made out against the appellant but in view of the compromise entered into between the parties it is in the interest of justice to permit them to compound this offence and thus, permission to compound it is granted. In view of the compromise between the parties the appellant is entitled to be acquitted for offence under Section 325 IPC also.

¶27

Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No.5/2001 is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted for offences for which he was convicted by the trial Court.

¶28

(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL)J.

¶29

teekam S.No.45

Gopal Singh Alias Gopi Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh Alias Gopi Ram v. State

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

Suresh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Iliyzer Vs State

Sanni @ Sharif Khan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rambhajan Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mool Chand Vs Manju Devi and Anr.

A C T O Vs M/S Mahaveer Enterprises