Partly allowed

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CRLAS/1468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan heard Criminal Appeals against conviction and acquittal arising from an interference incident. The Court modified the sentence of the appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing it from ten to seven years, while dismissing the complainant's appeal seeking conviction for murder and other accused.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from ten years to seven years; conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC maintained; Complainant's appeal for murder charge dismissed.

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1468/2018

¶4

Rajulal S/o Babulal By caste Gujjar, Resident of Ghhas, Police Station Sadar Tonk, Rajasthan.(At present lodged in District Jail, Tonk).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 280/2018

¶11

Ashok S/o Shri Devalal, by caste Gurjar R/o Village Ghans, Police Station Sadar, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Complainant/Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

Raju Lal S/o Shri Babulal, By caste Gurjar, R/o Village Ghans, Police Station Sadar, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶17

3.Rajaram S/o Shri Nathulal, by caste Gurjar, R/o Village Allahpura, Police Station Mehandwas, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶18

Kaluram S/o Shri Ramlal @ Rama, by caste Gurjar, R/o Village Ghans, Police Station Sadar, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶19

Mohan @ Golu S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, by caste Gurjar, aged about 26 years, R/o Kundher, Police Station Banetha, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶20

Ganeshlal S/o Shri Babulal, by caste Gurjar, R/o Village Ghans, Police Station Sadar, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶21

Dharamveer @ Dharma S/o Shri Ramkaran, by caste Gurjar R/o Bambhor Gate, Police Station Purani Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶22

----Accused- Respondents

¶23

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa with
	Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bharat Yadav,
	Ms. Sonia Shandilya, P.P.

¶24

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶25

(2 of 6)

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶27

Judgment

¶28

28/11/2018

¶29

These appeals are listed for admission but, with consent of the parties, they are admitted and heard finally.

¶30

These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 28.03.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Sessions Case No. 57/2012.

¶31

Appellant- Rajulal has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 part II IPC and sentenced for ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in case of default of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶32

Another appeal against the said order has been filed by the complainant against acquittal of other accused and even to seek conviction of Rajulal for the offence under Section 302 IPC thus both the appeals have been heard together.

¶33

The Police registered an FIR on 28.10.2011 on a written report made by Ashok. It was stated that at around 6:00 p.m., there was a fair of “ Ghans Bheru Baba”. The complainant along with Pukhraj were witnessing the fair. At that time, accused came in a Bolero bearing No. RJ-26-UA-0883 with the common object and caused injury to Pukhraj. Pukhraj fell down on the spot. The complainant was also beaten by the accused party. They were equipped with swords, sariya and gandase. The occurrence took place at the instance of accused due to old enmity.

¶34

After the FIR, police caused investigation and found a case against accused and filed charge-sheet. The trial Court, thereupon, framed charges for the offence under Sections 302,

¶35

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶36

(3 of 6)

¶37

302/149, 147, 148, 452, 323 and 325 IPC. The accused did not confess the charges, rather, claimed trial, it accordingly commenced. The prosecution produced twenty seven witnesses apart from twenty six documents to prove their case. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced two witnesses apart from twenty seven documents in defence.

¶38

The trial Court has acquitted all the accused other than Rajulal and even appellant- Rajulal has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 part II IPC and not for offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶39

In the appeal preferred by accused-appellant- Rajulal, a challenge to the conviction and sentence has been made but looking to the fact that he is behind bars for last more than seven years, learned counsel for the appellant prays for interference in the sentence though he has even argued the case for acquittal of the accused. It is mainly in reference to the present case as well as the cross case registered at the instance of accused. The evidence in both the cases is of throwing of stones by both the parties on each other. From the accused side, ten persons received eighteen injuries, while from complainant side, only two persons received injuries, out of which injured- Ashok received two simple injuries, whereas, deceased received one injury on right leg and one injury on the head. The said injuries have been attributed by accused- Rajulal but statements of eye witnesses could not be corroborated by prosecution. The allegation against the accusedRajulal is for causing head injury with use of an iron rod. The recovery of iron rod has not been made, rather, it is a lathi, that too, was not blood stained.

¶40

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶41

(4 of 6)

¶42

In view of the above, prosecution case fall flat and, accordingly, interference in the conviction can be made and, if not, then sentence awarded by the trial Court be reduced. It is even for the reason that the trial Court found it to be a case of free fight thus conviction was not made with the aid of Section 149 IPC. In the free fight, individual act of accused is to be seen. The evidence on record shows stones at place of occurrence and proved that both the parties had thrown stones on each other. The prayer is accordingly made to reduce the sentence.

¶43

It is also stated that occurrence took place at the instance of complainant if the earlier story is connected with the main occurrence. In fact, complainant came with intention to cause occurrence.

¶44

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have contested the appeals. It is, however, admitted that the allegation against the accused is for use of iron rod to cause head injury to deceased but a lathi was recovered from him. It is also admitted that in cross case and in the present case also, evidence has come about throwing of stones by both the parties.

¶45

In view of the above, prayer of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant is to maintain the conviction of the appellant- Rajulal though learned counsel for the complainant further prays for conviction of Rajulal for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶46

Learned counsel for the complainant, however, could not demonstrate that the statements of eye witnesses have been corroborated with recovery of weapon so as to make out a case for offence under Section 302 IPC. He is fair to admit that in a case of free fight, both the parties received injuries. From the

¶47

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶48

(5 of 6)

¶49

evidence on record, it has not come that Rajulal caused injury to deceased with the knowledge and intention to cause death so as to make out a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is also admitted that deceased- Pukhraj didn’t die on the spot, rather, it was after ten days. He was given treatment but the clot on the head was not removed and, ultimately, he died. Taking into consideration the overall facts, we find that the appeal preferred by the complainant to convict accused- Rajulal for the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. In the same manner, the prayer is made to convict other accused so acquitted by the trial Court.

¶50

Mr. Bharat Yadav, learned counsel in connected appeal, is fair to admit that specific allegation against other accused does not exist and, otherwise, in the cross case, complainant party has been acquitted though appeal against the order of acquittal has been filed separately by the appellant- Ganesh and others. Taking into consideration the way occurrence took place and the order of trial Court where Rajulal has not been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC but 304 part II IPC, we find a case for reduction of sentence from ten years to seven years and, accordingly, while not causing interference in the order of conviction, the appeal of accused-appellant- Rajulal is partly allowed by causing interference in the sentence. Ten years sentence is substituted to seven years while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court with consequences of default in making payment. The appeal of appellant- Rajulal is disposed of with the aforesaid.

¶51

So far as the appeal of complainant- Ashok is concerned, we do not find any substance therein so as to convict Rajulal for the

¶52

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶53

(6 of 6)

¶54

offence under Section 302 IPC and other accused, who have been acquitted by the trial Court.

¶55

The appeal preferred by complainant- Ashok is accordingly dismissed.

¶56

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶57

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶58

S. Kumawat/34-35

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

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

Ramphool Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Hariom S/O Shri Badan Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Matalub S/O Jahir Mohammad B/C Musalmaan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganeshlal Vs Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors.

Narendra @ Mahendra S/O Shri Mangal Chand B/C Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naveen Singh S/O Shri Girdhari Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary (Homes)