Partly allowed

Bhobal Singh and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2018CRLA/787/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder and injury convictions arising from a free fight were partly modified. The court rejected self-defence and objections to the pre-FIR inquiry, acquitted one appellant of murder with common intention, and reduced two attempted-murder sentences to three years' simple imprisonment. Other specified convictions were maintained; the deceased appellant's appeal abated.

What did the court decide?

Bhobal Singh acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC; his and Jitendra Singh's Section 307 IPC sentences reduced to three years' simple imprisonment.

Bhobal Singh and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.787/2008

¶3

Bhobal Singh son of Parbhati Singh.

¶4

Rambharosi son of Prahlad Singh.

¶5

Jitendra Singh son of Shri Bhobal Singh.

¶6

Manohar Singh son of Shri Hukam Singh.

¶7

Rajendra Singh alias Rajjo son of Paras Ram

¶8

all are by caste Jat, resident of village Birthala, police station Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (ALL ARE PRESENTLY LODGED IN CENTRAL JAIL AT BHARATPUR).

¶9

----appellants-accused

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through public prosecutor

¶12

----respondent

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Mr.Jaswant Singh Rathore & Mr.Devang Chaturvedi
For Respondent(s)	: Mrs. Sonia Shandilya – PP Mr. Rinesh Gupta with Mrs. Mudita Sharma & Mr. Aniket Sharma – for complainant

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶15

Judgment

¶16

11/10/2018

¶17

This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 24^th July, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur Headquarters, Deeg in Session Case

¶18

(2 of 20)

¶19

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶20

No.40/04, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants as under:

¶21

Accused No.1-Bhobal Singh :

¶22

For offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶23

For offence under Section 307 IPC – Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶24

For offence under Section 326/34 IPC – Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶25

For offence under Section 324/34 IPC – One year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶26

Accused No.2-Rambharosi :

¶27

For offence under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶28

Accused No.3-Jitendra Singh :

¶29

For offence under Section 307 IPC – Five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶30

Accused No.4-Manohar Singh (Manohari) :

¶31

For offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶32

(3 of 20)

¶33

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶34

For offence under Section 307/34 IPC – Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶35

For offence under Section 326 IPC – Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶36

For offence under Section 324/34 IPC – One year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶37

Accused No.5-Rajendra Singh alias Rajjo :

¶38

For offence under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶39

For offence under Section 307/34 IPC – Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶40

For offence under Section 326/34 IPC – Four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶41

For offence under Section 324 IPC – One year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶42

Out of five appellants before this court, appellant No.4Manohar Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh died during pendency of the appeal thus his appeal abates. The criminal appeal is thus pressed on behalf of remaining four appellants.

¶43

(4 of 20)

¶44

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶45

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

¶46

The complainants lodged a written report (Exhibit-P8) for the incidence took place on 6^th March, 1993. Based on the written report, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur registered an FIR No.54/1993, Exhibit-P9.

¶47

After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against fifteen accused. Learned trial court framed charges and when accused denied charges, trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution produced 26 witnesses apart from 37 documents. In defence, the statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they produced 22 documents.

¶48

After marshalling evidence led by both the parties, the trial court convicted accused-Rajjo and Rambharosi for offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas, Manohari (since deceased) and Bhobal for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused-Jitendra and Bhobal were convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas, Manohari and Rajjo for offence under Section 307/34 IPC. Accused-Manohari was further convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC, whereas, Rajjo and Bhobal for offence under Section 326/34 IPC. Accused-Rajjo was convicted even for offence under Section 324 IPC, whereas, Manohari and Bhobal for offence under Section 324/34 IPC. Other ten accused were acquitted.

¶49

Learned counsel for appellants submits that investigation in the matter was started without registration of FIR. The FIR (Exhibit-P9) was registered on 6^th March, 1993 at 3.30 PM, whereas, Exhibit-P1 to Exhibit-P7 were prepared prior to

¶50

(5 of 20)

¶51

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶52

registration of the FIR. The medical examinations of injured witnesses were also conducted prior to registration of the FIR.

¶53

The complainants lodged an FIR later on to implicate the appellants by giving a different story. In view of the above, the investigation was tainted one, thus should not have been relied by the trial court. In this regard, a reference of site plan (Exhibit-P3) prepared by PW24-Deep Chand Gautam has also been given. The place of occurrence indicated therein is different than actual place of occurrence.

¶54

It is submitted that complainants were aggressor. It is proved that occurrence took place in a “Chowk” belonging to the accused. It was to cause dacoity thus complainant party was equipped with deadly weapons i.e. Pharsi, Dhariya, Sariya, Lathi, etc. It is proved from the fact that not only dead body was found in the “Chowk” but sign of occurrence and blood was found there and not at the place shown as “X” in the site plan.

¶55

The complainants have stated that deceased-Samundar Singh came with a bucket of milk. At that time, Rajjo was following him. He opened fire on Samundar Singh and another accused-Bhobal Singh opened fire on Ranveer Singh. Pinno came to save them and sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, the deceased and injured were thereafter pulled in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused and thereupon occurrence took place again. The prosecution has shown occurrence twice, whereas, it was only once, that too, in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused. In view of the above, accused could prove that complainant party came to cause dacoity and therefore, occurrence took place in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused. The accused party acted in defence. The site plan (Exhibit-P3) proves aforesaid as

¶56

(6 of 20)

¶57

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶58

bloodstained soil was collected from the “Chowk” belonging to the accused and not at the place ‘X’ shown in the site plan. It was not only of the deceased but even of the injured. The site plan shows that deceased was lying at place ‘I’ and the injured were at the places marked as ‘K’ and ‘K1’. In view of the above, no incidence took place at the places marked as ‘X’ and ‘Z’ shown in the site plan. No indication or evidence could be produced to show occurrence at the place marked as ‘X’ in the site plan. The prosecution story gets falsified with the aforesaid and cause of delay to register the FIR was only to make a story contrary to the incidence. It is for that reason alone, even the bucket of milk could not be recovered by the prosecution.

¶59

The Investigating Officers PW16-Bhopal Singh and PW24Deep Chand Gautam, have admitted that no bucket was recovered from the place of incidence. In view of the above, it is the complainant party who was aggressor. The accused party acted in self-defence. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the trial court should not have convicted any of the appellants.

¶60

A reference of the statements of PW6-Angana Ram, PW8Ranno @ Ranveer, PW9-Chauthi, PW11-Daya Ram, PW18-Ranveer and PW19-Pinno has been given. They are injured eye-witnesses, whereas, PW1-Harmukh and PW13-Shiv Ram are the eyewitnesses. All the witnesses have given stereo-type story to show involvement of the accused. It has been relied by the trial court without taking into consideration that the site plan (Exhibit-P3) was prepared by the Police prior to the registration of the FIR. The place of occurrence shown at ‘X’ could not be proved. As per statements of injured witnesses themselves, the first occurrence took place at place ‘X’ and, thereupon, deceased-Samundar Singh

¶61

(7 of 20)

¶62

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶63

apart from injured-Ranveer Singh and Pinno were pulled inside the “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. No evidence of pulling deceased or injured could be collected by the Police and even blood was not found at place ‘X’. Accordingly, a false story has been supported by the witnesses and ignored by the trial court. The trial court should not have believed testimony of those witnesses, who have given statements not only in stereo-type manner but to make altogether a new case. In view of the above also, a case is made out for causing interference in the order passed by the trial court.

¶64

It is moreso when a cross case was registered against the complainant party. The accused party has received injuries not only from the firearm but even from blunt object. Two accused from complainant party were convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The conviction of complainant party has been challenged by maintaining a separate appeal. Number of members from the complainant side were present at the place of occurrence. It gets supported by the injury reports of the injured from complainant party. They received injuries as they were present at the place of occurrence and not otherwise. The cross case also supports appellants. The complainant party came with the object to commit dacoity and therein, occurrence took place. Otherwise, seven members from the accused party have received injuries. The aforesaid aspect has also been ignored by learned trial court while convicting the appellants.

¶65

It is also submitted that in the case of self-defence, conviction could not have been made for offence under Section 302 IPC even if appellants had exceeded to their self-defence. They could not have been convicted for offence under Section 302

¶66

(8 of 20)

¶67

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶68

IPC simplicitor or with the aid of Section 34 IPC without showing their common intention to cause offence. Even if the story taken by the prosecution is considered, Rajjo was following Samundar Singh when he was coming home with a bucket of milk and opened fire on him and Bhobal opened fire on Ranveer Singh. Only two persons were present at the first place of occurrence shown by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the common intention of all the accused does not get established. In fact, a false story of second occurrence has been given. The appellants have exercised their right of self-defence and if they exceeded to it, then also their conviction is not sustainable for the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC.

¶69

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have contested the appeal. It is stated that there is no delay in registration of the FIR. On receipt of the information about occurrence, the Police reached on the spot and caused inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the course of inquiry, Exhibit-P1 to P7 were prepared and therein, statements of witnesses were also recorded.

¶70

It is also stated that PW24-Deepchand Gautam has given reference of FIR but number on it was not written. The number of FIR was subsequently written. In view of the above, there was no illegality in causing inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. A specific reference of Inquest Report (Exhibit-P1) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has been given. The documents Exhibit-P1 to P7 and statements of the witnesses were an outcome of the inquiry. The FIR was thereupon registered on the same day followed by investigation. Accordingly, there is no illegality in causing inquiry followed by

¶71

(9 of 20)

¶72

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶73

investigation by the Police on receipt of information about occurrence.

¶74

It is also stated that not only in the written report but as per statements of witnesses also, first occurrence took place at the place marked as “X” in the site plan (Exhibit-P3) and, thereupon, second occurrence in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. The deceased and the injured were pulled and taken in the open “Chowk” belonging to the accused. When other members of the complainant party reached to save the deceased and the injured, they were also subjected to injuries. It was not only from firearm but even by blunt object. The aforesaid is proved by Injury Reports as well as Medico Legal Certificate (“MLC”) of the injured, Exhibit-P11, P12, P14, P16 to P19 and P25 to P29. The MLCs show punctured wounds as well as other injuries to the injured.

¶75

It is also stated that a plea for self-defence has been taken ignoring that initially occurrence took place at place ‘X’ shown in the site plan (Exhibit-P3) and thereupon in the open “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. In view of the above, a case of self-defence is not made out for causing gunshot injuries to deceased and Ranveer Singh apart from Pinno. They were brought in the “Chowk” belonging to accused party and, thereupon, subjected to gunshot injuries apart from other injuries by the accused party. The story of commission of dacoity has not been believed by the trial court. It is for the reason that allegation of coming with deadly weapons to commit dacoity by the complainant party could not be proved. No weapon was recovered from the complainant party to support the story. Accordingly, the case brought in defence could not be proved, whereas, prosecution could prove their case beyond doubt.

¶76

(10 of 20)

¶77

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶78

Majority of the injured witnesses have supported prosecution case. Their statements are corroborative and do not suffer from contradictions. They have made specific allegations against the appellants for causing gunshot injuries to the deceased and the injured. Their testimony could not be demolished in the crossexamination. Accordingly, the prosecution could prove their case beyond doubt, whereas, the appellants failed to prove their case in defence and even in cross case. Two members of the complainant party have been convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC but no weapon has been recovered. The injury to one Shiv Singh from accused side is out of firearm but no firearm was recovered from the complainant side.

¶79

A cross case against the complainant party proves that occurrence took place. The number of injuries sustained by the complainant party shows that initially the appellants were aggressor and after the aforesaid, occurrence took place in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. The recovery of firearm has been made from Bhobal Singh and Manohar Singh. This also proves use of firearms. The cartridges were also recovered from the place of occurrence. They were sent for FSL report. The FSL report shows that firearms are serviceable though duration of fire has not been given therein. The FSL report (Exhibit-C1) shows that 12-Bore cartridges recovered from Packet “A” have been fired from 12-Bore S.B.B.L. Gun. This also proves prosecution case thus a prayer is made to dismiss the appeal by maintaining conviction of appellants other than Manohar Singh, who died during pendency of the appeal.

¶80

We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶81

(11 of 20)

¶82

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶83

The FIR (Exhibit-P9) was registered on 6^th March, 1993 based on the written report (Exhibit-P8). The information of the occurrence was given soon after the incident, however, an FIR was registered at 3.30 PM. The first plea taken by learned counsel for appellants is about delay in registration of the FIR. It is alleged to create a story to implicate the appellants. The delay in registration of the FIR is said to be fatal and, at the same time, the investigation made prior to registration of FIR has been questioned.

¶84

It is submitted that Exhibit-P1 to P7 were prepared prior to registration of the FIR, which includes even site plan (Exhibit-P3). The statements of witnesses were also recorded prior to registration of the FIR thus the prayer is not to rely on the investigation and to quash the order of the trial court as it failed to consider the aforesaid aspect. The investigation prior to registration of FIR could not have been caused.

¶85

We have considered the issue aforesaid and find that on a written report (Exhibit-P8), the FIR (Exhibit-P9) was registered. It is no doubt true that documents (Exhibit-P1 to P7) were prepared prior to registration of the FIR and even the statements of witnesses were also recorded. The perusal of Exhibit-P1 shows it to be under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has come with a case that prior to registration of the FIR, they caused inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, Section 174 Cr.P.C. is quoted hereunder:

¶86

“ 174. Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. —(1)

¶87

When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a

¶88

(12 of 20)

¶89

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶90

person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place, where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted.

¶91

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.

¶92

(3) When—

¶93

(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or

¶94

(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or

¶95

(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or

¶96

(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or

¶97

(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the

¶98

(13 of 20)

¶99

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶100

State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.

¶101

(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate.”

¶102

Section 174 Cr.P.C. permits an investigation and report in the case of suicide apart from other cases. It is even in a case when one is killed. In view of the above, inquiry into the matter was permissible though according to learned counsel for appellants, it could not have been in the shape of investigation. We find that Exhibit-P1 makes a specific reference of Section 174 Cr.P.C. Further investigation was caused subsequent to registration of the FIR. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality for causing inquiry/investigation prior to registration of FIR.

¶103

The another issue is about delay in lodging FIR. It is submitted that when information of the incident was given in the morning itself and even the Police Officer came at the place of occurrence at 7.00 AM, there was no reason not to register the FIR then and there. It is also alleged that FIR was registered with delay to make out a new story to implicate the accused.

¶104

We have considered the aforesaid aspect and find that after receipt of information about incident, the Police came at the place of occurrence. They should have registered the FIR but caused

¶105

(14 of 20)

¶106

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶107

investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Therein, not only ExhibitP1 to Exhibit-P7 were prepared but the statements were also recorded. The FIR was registered immediately thereupon thus it cannot be said to be a case of delay in registration of FIR. In fact, complainant had given information of incident in the morning itself.

¶108

The other issue is to make a new story and said to be the reason of delay in lodging of the FIR. The appellants have submitted that instead of one place of occurrence, the prosecution has shown two places. The purpose of delay in lodging FIR was to change the place of occurrence and to implicate the accused.

¶109

We find that investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was started immediately after receipt of the information. The statements of witnesses were recorded apart from preparation of site plan and other documents which includes medical report. It would not have been done if the intention was to change the place of occurrence or to implicate the accused.

¶110

Learned trial court has taken two places of occurrence. The perusal of site plan at Exhibit-P3 shows that body of injured and the deceased were found in a “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. The places, where body was found, have been marked in the site plan. It further shows first place of occurrence marked as “X” in the site plan. The deceased-Samundar Singh and Ranveer Singh apart from Pinno were pulled and brought in the “Chowk” subsequently. We find that site plan (Exhibit-P3) does not prove prosecution case for the aforesaid. Even the statements of Investigating Officers PW16 and P24 do not show any evidence to prove occurrence at the place marked “X”. The soil was not having any mark of blood of deceased or injured at place marked ‘X’. The

¶111

(15 of 20)

¶112

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶113

milk bucket was also not recovered from that place and no marks of pulling deceased and injured were found thus we find that story taken by the prosecution to show occurrence at two places could not be proved.

¶114

The occurrence took place in the “Chowk” belonging to the accused party. The statements of eye-witnesses PW1-Harmukh, PW2-Siya Chand, PW6-Angna Ram, PW8-Ranno @ Ranveer, PW9Chauthi, PW11-Daya Ram, PW18-Mangli, PW19-Ranveer, PW21Angna and PW22-Chauthi Ram prove the occurrence and other evidence shows that initially there was throwing of bricks and stones by the accused. The bricks and the stones were lying on the terrace and nearby places. On throwing of the stones and the bricks, the complainant party came in the “Chowk” belonging to accused party, then they were subjected to gunshot injuries apart from other injuries from blunt object. The aforesaid aspect is material because prosecution could bring evidence to show throwing of stones and bricks prior to occurrence of opening fire and causing injury by blunt object. It is also to find out whether a case of self-defence is made out and further whether it was exceeded by the appellants, if, at all, it was a case of self-defence.

¶115

The eye-witnesses have given corroborative statements wherein they have made specific allegations against Rajendra Singh @ Rajjo for opening fire on deceased-Samundar Singh and Bhobal to cause gunshot injuries to Ranveer Singh and Pinno.

¶116

So far as Ram Bharosi is concerned, he caused head injury to deceased-Samundar Singh and, according to post-mortem report, it was the cause of death. The firearms have been recovered from Bhobal Singh and Manohari vide Exhibit-P20 and P30 respectively. The recovery of firearms was on the information

¶117

(16 of 20)

¶118

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶119

given by accused-Bhobal Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The information about “Katta” was given by Manohari vide Exhibit-P37.

¶120

In view of the above, the prosecution could prove recovery of firearms. As per the FSL report (Exhibit-C1), both the arms were found serviceable. The cartridges were also recovered by the prosecution vide Exhibit-P4 and sent for FSL. It shows fire out of those cartridges and firearms recovered from the accused. The finding of the FSL is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶121

“(1) One 12-bore S.B.B.L. Gun (W/1) from packet ‘C’ and one 12-bore country made pistol (W/2) from packet F are serviceable firearms.

¶122

(2) The examination of the barrels residues indicate that submitted two firearms (W/1) & (W/2) had been fired However, the definite time of their last fire could not be ascertained.

¶123

(3) Based on stereo & comparison microscopic examinations it is the opinion that four 12-bore cartridge cases (C/1 to C/4) from packet ‘A’ have been fired from submitted 12-bore S.B.B.L. Gun (W/1) from packet ‘C’.

¶124

(4) Twenty four wads (D/1 to D/24) from packet ‘A’ are normally used in 12-bore ammunition. These could have been comeout from 12-bore cartridge cases (C/1 to C/4).”

¶125

(17 of 20)

¶126

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶127

The FSL report proves prosecution case for use of firearm. The post-motem report shows gunshot injuries to the deceased. The MLCs exhibited by the prosecution also show gunshot and other injuries to injured-Mangi, Daya Ram, Angana and Chauthi apart from other injured. In view of the above, the prosecution could prove use of firearms by the accused party. The deceased and the injured have received injuries even from blunt object. The death of deceased-Samundar Singh was due to head injury caused by accused Rambharosi.

¶128

The question now remains as to whether case of self-defence is made out. If it is made out then whether it was in proportion. The learned counsel for appellants has shown place of occurrence “X” in the site plan. We have recorded our finding on the aforesaid and disbelieved “X” to be place of occurrence. The occurrence took place in “Chowk” after throwing of stones and bricks by the accused party.

¶129

A case of self-defence is not made out because complainant party came in the “Chowk” on throwing of stones and bricks by the accused party. The occurrence, thereafter, took place in the “Chowk” where complainant party did not come with deadly weapons. No recovery of weapon has been effected from complainants, yet they were subjected to injuries by firearm apart from blunt object. In view of the above, we do not find that a case of self-defence is made out.

¶130

It is also a fact that accused party has also received injuries thus free fight took place between two groups. A reference of the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would also be relevant. According to the appellants, the complainant party came with the intention to cause dacoity. The accused party could not

¶131

(18 of 20)

¶132

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶133

prove it. It is also a fact that no weapon was recovered from complainant party though alleged to have come with Pharsa, Dhariya, Sariya, Lathi, etc. It also shows that for making a case of self-defence, a story of dacoity has been created and that too, dacoity by the neighbours. We are unable to accept a case of selfdefence and story of dacoity. We find it to be a case of free fight between two parties subsequent to throwing stones and bricks by the accused party. In view of the above, conviction could not have been made with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

¶134

In view of the above, we have considered individual act of each accused-appellants for conviction and sentence. We find that as per statements of eye-witnesses (PW1-Harmukh & PW2-Siya Chand) and injured witnesses (PW6-Angana Ram, PW8-Ranno @ Ramveer, PW9-Chauthi, PW11-Daya Ram, PW18-Mangli, PW19Pinno, PW21-Angana & PW22-Chothiram), accused-Rambharosi caused head injury to the deceased-Samundar Singh by a blunt object, whereas, accused-Rajendra Singh opened fire on the deceased and even on injured. Accordingly, we find that those two accused caused offence under Section 302 IPC. They were equipped with weapons and head injury caused by Rambharosi was sufficient to cause death. Accordingly, we convict accusedRambharosi and Rajendra Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC. The weapons used by those accused were with the knowledge and intention to cause death.

¶135

So far as accused-Bhobal Singh and Jitendra Singh are concerned, they have caused injuries to the injured. Jitendra Singh caused injury to Daya Ram. PW3-Govind has testified in the court that on the date of incidence, he saw Jitendra Singh with a gun in his hand. Jitendra tried to stop Dayaram while he was

¶136

(19 of 20)

¶137

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶138

trying to go to his agricultural field. When Dayaram insisted to let him go, Jitendra fired on him which hit him on his face and ear lobe. PW7-Khemi has also testified that Jitendra fired on Dayaram. PW11-Dayaram has also corroborated the testimony of PW3 and PW7 whilst stating that Jitendra Singh fired on him which hit him on his face and chest. Bhobal Singh opened fire on injuredRanveer Singh. The other injured have also received injuries from firearm as well as blunt object. In view of the above, a case for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Accused-Bhobal Singh and Jitendra Singh participated in the occurrence for causing offence under Section 307 and it is proved by eye-witnesses apart from injured witnesses. It is even supported by the MLC and the recovery memo. Accordingly, these two accused are convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC.

¶139

As per the statement of injured witnesses the injuries caused by Bhobal Singh and Rajendra Singh are sufficient for their conviction u/s 326 and 324 IPC. PW9-Chauthi, has stated that the accused caused injuries by firearm. Bhobal Singh fired on the said witness and caused injury. The injury report is marked as Ex. P14. PW18-Mangli has also corroborated the prosecution story and stated that Manohari (deceased), Bhobal Singh and Rajjo @ Rajendra Singh caused multiple injuries using firearms to Angna, Chauthi and Mangli. PW21-Angna has also corroborated the story and testified to the effect that Rajjo @ Rajendra Singh and Bhobal caused firearm injury to Mangli and Chauthi.

¶140

In view of the finding given above, conviction of Rambharosi and Rajendra Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC and their sentence to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple

¶141

(20 of 20)

¶142

[CRLA-787/2008]

¶143

imprisonment, is maintained. The conviction of Rajendra Singh for the offence under section 307/34 IPC and his sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3.000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment is maintained. His conviction under Section 326/34 IPC and sentence to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment is also maintained. His conviction under Section 324 IPC and sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment is also maintained.

¶144

The accused Bhobal Singh is acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. His conviction under Section 326/34 IPC and sentence to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment is maintained. His conviction under Section 324/34 IPC and sentence to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment is also maintained. The sentence of Bhobal Singh and Jitendra Singh for offence under Section 307 IPC is, however, reduced to three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

¶145

The criminal appeal is partly allowed.

¶146

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶147

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶148

FRBOHRA

Bhobal Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhobal Singh and Ors. 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

Abid Mohammad Qureshi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Jagdish Kumar Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Hanuman S/O Shri Moti Lal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Singh S/O Sh. Daya Ram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh @ Gittu S/O Late Naryan Ram B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Soorajmal S/O Keshrilal B/C Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp