Dismissed

Madan Lal S/O Shri Kanhi Ram B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2019CRLAD/7/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench at Jaipur dismissed an criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for double murder and grievous hurt. Upholding the trial court's judgment, the court held that the injured eye-witness testimony was natural and corroborated by medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, and 341 IPC.

Madan Lal S/O Shri Kanhi Ram B/C Gurjar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7/2019

¶3

Madan Lal S/o Shri Kanhi Ram B/c Gurjar, R/o Pirawa Road Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶4

Bothlal S/o Shri Uda B/c Gurjar, R/o Pirawa Road Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶5

Shyamlal S/o Kanhiram B/c Gurjar, R/o Pirawa Road Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶6

Gopal S/o Shri Kanhiram B/c Gurjar, R/o Pirawa Road Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶7

Kalulal S/o Shri Uda B/c Gurjar, R/o Near Hadariya School Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶8

Prahlad S/o Shri Uda B/c Gurjar, R/o Mahudiya Ka Bag Sunel Ps Sunel Dist. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Sub Jail Bhawani Mandi Dist. Jhalawar)

¶9

----Appellants Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P.

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶15

Judgment

¶16

05/07/2019

¶17

Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 147 dated 01.10.2008 registered at police station Sunel, District Jhalawar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

¶18

(2 of 7)

¶19

[CRLAD-7/2019]

¶20

(hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’). Offence under Section 302 IPC was added later, on account of death of Shyamlal and Balu @ Balaram.

¶21

FIR in the present case was lodged by complainant Sujan. As per the prosecution story, complainant was going on 01.10.2008 at about 9.00 a.m. towards Jhalawar alongwith his brothers namely Balaram @ Balu, Shyamlal and Kishanlal on motorcycles. On the way, Kishanlal stated that they should stop for a cup of tea. When they had ordered tea, 20/22 persons came to the spot on 7/8 motorcycles. The said persons were armed with Gandasi , swords, sticks and guns. The persons who had encircled them included Gopal son of Uda, Ramchander son of Pratap, Hira son of Pratap, Balu son of Bardhilal, Kalu son of Uda, Bohatlal son of Uda, Prahlad son of Uda, Toofan son of Bohatlal, Madan son of Kanhi Ram, Shyamlal son of Kanhi Ram, Gopal son of Kanhi Ram and Toofan son of Gopal. The said accused inflicted injuries to Balu @ Balaram, Shyamlal and Kishanlal. Injured were removed to the hospital for treatment.

¶22

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against thirteen persons including the appellants. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶23

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twentyeight witnesses, during trial. Accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.

¶24

Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 19.09.2012 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 341 I.P.C. So far as accused Bhairulal,

¶25

(3 of 7)

¶26

[CRLAD-7/2019]

¶27

Ashok Kumar, Ram Prasad, Toofan son of Kalulal, Mohanlal and Kailash are concerned, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶28

Appellants preferred appeals before this Court challenging their conviction and sentence. Vide order dated 28.08.2017 Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the trial Court to pass a fresh judgment after hearing the appellants. It was further ordered that the trial Court may separately proceed against the accused qua whom process was issued under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶29

After remand, trial court has ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 148, 341, 307/149, 302/149 vide judgment/order dated 18.07.2018. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case. Accused who were similarly situated as the appellants have been acquitted by the trial Court. No specific overt act has been attributed to the appellants by the alleged eye-witnesses. Although, it was the prosecution story that some of the accused were armed with guns but the injured as well as the deceased have suffered injuries with blunt weapons. Recovery of sticks have been falsely foisted on the appellants.

¶31

Learned State counsel, has opposed the appeal.

¶32

It is a case of double murder. In the occurrence-in-question, Balu @ Balaram, Shyamlal and Kishanlal suffered injuries. Balu @ Balaram and Shyamlal succumbed to their injuries. Thus, present case rests on eye-witness account.

¶33

(4 of 7)

¶34

[CRLAD-7/2019]

¶35

Complainant- Sujan while appearing in the witness-box has deposed as per the prosecution story. He has specifically named all the appellants during trial and has deposed that they had inflicted injuries to the deceased as well as the injured.

¶36

Injured-Kishanlal has appeared in the witness-box as PW-3 and has deposed that he knew the accused present in the Court. Kalulal son of Kishanlal, Mohanlal son of Tarachand and Kailash son of Mangilal had not participated in the occurrence. He knew Shyamlal and Balu @ Balaram. On the day of occurrence, at about 10/11.00 a.m. he was present with Shyamlal and Balu @ Balaram. Sheodan was also accompanying them. They had stopped on the way for taking tea. While they were going towards the hotel, 7/8 motorcycles came from their village side. They were having enmity with the motorcycles riders. Gopal, Ramchander, Hira, Raju, Balu, Prahlad another Gopal, Madanlal, Shyamlal, Kalu another Prahlad, Ashok, Mukan, Dayaram, Nanda, Ramprasad another Gopal and Devilal etc. rushed towards them and inflicted injuries to them. Ashok was armed with countrymade gun and fired on his foot. Ramchander was armed with a farsi type stick and gave a blow with it on his head. Gopal fired at Shyamlal. Then, they had inflicted injuries to them with sticks and had fled away from the spot. Shyamlal and Balu succumbed to their injuries.

¶37

Eye-witnesses PW-4 Toofan, PW-10 Nanda and PW-24 Rajaram corroborated the statement of eye-witnesses PW-2 Sujan and PW-3 Kishanlal.

¶38

So far as other witnesses PW-6 Ram Karan, PW-7 Bhagwan Singh, PW-11 Balaram, PW-12 Bhairulal, PW-18 Kailash, PW-21 Bhagwan Singh and PW-22 Peerulal are concerned, they did not

¶39

(5 of 7)

¶40

[CRLAD-7/2019]

¶41

support the prosecution case, during trial and were declared hostile.

¶42

PW-25 Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan proved the medico legal examination report of injured Kishanlal Exhibit-39. He proved his report Exhibit-40. He also proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Balu @ Balaram Exhibit-49 and postmortem examination report of deceased Shyamlal exhibit-50.

¶43

Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency.

¶44

A perusal of Exhibit-39 reveals that the injured had suffered 11 injuries including fracture of lower and right humerus bone , right scapula, left ulna, right tibia and fibula, left femur and fracture of lower left leg. As per Exhibit-40, injury Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 on the person of the injured were declared grievous in nature, whereas, the remaining injuries were declared simple in nature.

¶45

A perusal of Exhibit-49 reveals that deceased Balu @ Balaram had suffered 10 injuries including multiple fractures of tibia and fibula and fracture of left radius and ulna.

¶46

As per Exhibit-50 deceased Shyamlal had suffered 12 injuries including fracture of left humerus bone, fracture of left lower part of tibia and fibula, fracture of right radius and ulna and fracture of right lower part of tibia and fibula.

¶47

Cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhage due to cumulative effect of all the injuries. Thus, as per the medical evidence, it is evident that the injured as well as the deceased had suffered multiple injuries. All the injuries had been caused with blunt weapons.

¶48

(6 of 7) [CRLAD-7/2019]

¶49

As per the prosecution story, appellants were armed with sticks. Appellants have been specifically named by injured Kishalal as the persons, who had participated in the crime. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution can be said to be PW-3 injured Kishanlal. As per medical/ocular verion, injured as well as deceased had suffered injuries with blunt weapons. Thus, ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence.

¶50

In the facts of the present case, there is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the appellants were liable to be acquitted, as no specific overt act had been attributed to them. It is a case where number of accused had attacked the complainant party and the injured as well as the deceased have suffered number of injuries including numerous fractures . It could not be expected from injured PW-3 Kishanlal to have attributed each and every injury suffered by him as well as the deceased to a particular accused, when all the accused had attacked them together. Injured as well as the deceased have suffered multiple fractures/injuries. Presence of injured Kishanlal at the spot cannot be doubted, as he had also suffered injuries in the incident. Statement of PW-3 Kishanlal being natural inspires confidence. Appellants were named in the FIR and the complainant as well as injured Kishanlal have duly supported the prosecution case, during trial with regard to the role played by the appellants at the time of commission of crime. Although, many of the eye-witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case during trial and PW-3 Kishanlal has deposed that PW-4 Toofan, PW-10 Nanda and PW-24 Rajaram had come to the spot after the accused had fled away but the said fact does not render the testimony of PW-3 Kishanlal doubtful. Rather, it shows

¶51

(7 of 7)

¶52

[CRLAD-7/2019]

¶53

that the injured witness had come out with the truth. Statement of complainant corroborates the statement of the injured witness.

¶54

Thus, prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶55

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants with regard to charges framed against them.

¶56

No ground for interference is made out.

¶57

Dismissed.

¶58

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶59

(SABINA),J

¶60

Sudha/28

Madan Lal S/O Shri Kanhi Ram B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal S/O Shri Kanhi Ram B/C Gurjar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoj Khan S/O Noor Mohammed B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kalicharan S/O Shri Brijmohan @ Badshah B/C Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetram S/O Chhote Lal B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Naim S/O Abdul Vakil B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagdish Gurjar Son of Shri Ranglal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar @ Shailesh S/O Shri Harish Chandra B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan