Partly allowed

Hukam Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2023CRLA/92/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal of Hukam Singh by quashing his murder conviction due to insufficient evidence and partly allowed the appeal of Pooran Singh by reducing his charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

What did the court decide?

Hukam Singh's conviction set aside; Pooran Singh convicted under Section 304 Part-II and sentenced to 10 years; bail bonds of both cancelled; personal bonds directed.

Hukam Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

*, . " 7s.- + HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH ~TUAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9212015

¶4

Hukam Singh, S/o Hajari Singh, Aged about 47 years,

¶5

Pooran Singh, S/o Hajari Singh, aged about 43 years. Both R/o Village Rawatmal, P.S. Jawaja, District Ajmer, Ram.

¶6

(Both presently confined in Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶7

----Accused-Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal with Ms. Pallavi Pareek, Ms. Mamta Vijaywargia, Mr. Nikhil For Respondent(s) : Mr. laved Choudhary, Addl. GA

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Judarnent

¶14

29/08/2023

¶15

The accused appellants have preferred the instant Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Beawar, District Ajmer whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and have been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of IPC and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 452 of IPC, the accused appellants have been sentenced to five years simple imprisonment and a fine of

¶16

Rs.5,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment.

¶17

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.05.2011, PW-4- complainant (Trilok Singh) submitted a written report Ex.P-1 at Police Station Jawaja, Ajmer. On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No.9512011 under Sections 307, 452, 323, 143 IPC. The Police, after due investigation, filed chargesheet against the present accused appellants and other coaccused. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 323, 452, 302 and 149 of IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and sought trial. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and 36 documents were exhibited. Explanation of the accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, Exhibit-Dl was exhibited. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2011 at around 7:00 am, the accused, who lived right across the home of the complainant, were hurling abuses and alleged that the complainant side had thrown acid on the buffalo of the accused. Thereafter, complainant -Trilok Singh (PW-4) and his brother - Devendra Singh (PW12) went towards the field to attend nature's call where they were attacked and beaten by Pooran Singh, Hukan Singh, Pawan Singh, Santra Devi, Kesar Devi, Shanti and Ganpat Singh. As per the FIR, Ravindra Singh (PW-3) returned back and entered his house and locked his house from the inside and thereafter, Pooran Singh and Hukam Singh forcefully entered their home, broke the gates of the room & pole and gave beating to deceased - Laxman Singh and then they dragged him outside the

¶18

room. He was beaten with lathis and one lathi blow is said to be given by Pooran Singh on the head of the deceased.

¶19

It is contended by the learned Amicus Curaie that accused appellant - Pooran Singh has remained in custody for a period of about 12 years. The incident took place on the spur of the moment. Accused appellant - Pooran Singh never intended to commit the offence of murder. There is no sharp injury on the vital part of the body. The rustic villagers were carrying lathis and only lathi blows were given to the deceased.

¶20

It is also contended that all the other co-accused have been convicted for offence under Section 323134 and have been given benefit of probation and have been acquitted for offence under Sections 302, 147 and 452 of IPC. It is argued that there is no allegation against accused-appellant Hukarn Singh of causing any fatal blow on Laxman Singh and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 of IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Our attention is drawn towards the statements of Ravindra Singh (PW-3), Nirmla (PW-lo), Devendra Singh (PW-12) and Manju Devi (PW-16). It is also contended that the Police has not made any site-plan with regard to the first incident, which took place in the field on 01.05.2011. It is further contended that ,another incident took place between the parties on 29.04.2011 in which the complainant side were assailants and have been chargesheeted. The present occurrence is .said to have been taken place on 01.05.2011. As per the prosecution, one incident took place in the fields and another incident took place inside the house. Trilok Singh(PW-4) and Nirrnla (PW-10) were injured in the field and they did not reach the house. Ravindra Singh (PW-3), Devendra

¶22

*.. x Singh (PW-12) and Manju Devi ('Pw-16) have shown their presence inside the house at the time when the incident with the deceased Laxman Singh took place. As per the statements of Manju Devi (PW-16), she and Ravindra Singh (PW-3) were in one room and Devendra Singh (PW-12) and deceased - Laxman Singh were in another room. Devendra Singh (PW-12) has deposed that he was with deceased Laxman Singh and as far as Ravindra Singh (PW-3) and Manju Devi (PW-16) are concerned, they were in another room and as per the site-plan, there were no openings in the room from which they could have witnessed the alleged incident. Thus, the story now rests on the solitary evidence of Devendra Singh (PW-12), who has stated that Pooran Singh after entering in the house gave a blow with an axe on the head of the deceased. The injury sustained by the deceased is a lacerated wound. A lathi has been recovered from accused appellant- Pooran Singh, which is found to be stained with human blood. According to FSL Report, the blood on the lathis belonged to blood GroupAB, which were matching the blood Group-AB found on the safi and shirt of the victim. Thus, from the evidence, it can be inferred that accused appellant - Pooran Singh gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased as deceased has sustained depressed fracture on the skull.

¶23

It is also to be noted that incident took place as the accused side was complaining that the complainant side had thrown acid on the buffalo belonging to the accused side. Another incident had taken place on 29.04.2011 and a report of the same was filed against the complainant side as has been admitted by Ravindra Singh (PW-3) and Devendra Singh (PW-12), who have admitted

¶24

that on 29.04.2011 for the first-incident, a report was lodged against the complainant side.

¶25

We are of the considered view that causing a single blow with a lathi would fall under the category of offence under Section 304 Part-I1 as the person, who is causing the injury, had the knowledge that the injury could have caused death. Accused appellant - Pooran Singh was surely having the knowledge that his act is likely to have caused death but he was not having any intention to cause death.

¶26

Learned Amicus Curaie has also contended that the matter would not travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part-I1 of IPC. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶27

In view of the discussion ahove, we are of the considered view that the act of accused appellant - Pooran Singh falls under the category of Section 304 Part-I1 & Section 452 of IPC. As far as' Hukam Singh is concerned, he has been wrongly convicted for offence under Section 302 & 452 IPC as Devendra Singh (PW-12) has not given any evidence with regard to Hukam Singh causing any injury to the deceased. We have also disbelieved the evidence of Ravindra Singh (PW-3) and Manju Devi (PW-16). Thus, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant - Hukam Singh under Sections 452, 302 of IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also not disputed the fact that the presence of Hukam Singh was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

¶28

Thus, conviction and sentence of accused appellant - Pooran Singh under Section 452 of IPC is upheld. However, the conviction

¶29

and sentence of appellant -Pioran Singh for offence under Section 302 is quashed instead he is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-11. He is sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run together.

¶30

Accordingly, the present Appeal qua the appellant No.1 - Hukam Singh is allowed and that of appellant No.2 - Pooran Singh is partly allowed.

¶31

Bail bonds of accused appellant - Hukam Singh, who is on bail, stand cancelled.

¶32

Accused appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.

¶33

Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶34

(BHUWAN GOYAL),]

¶35

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),]

¶36

Sunil Solankl/PS

Hukam Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukam Singh and Anr. 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

Sheoji @ Shivji Lal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Prahlad S/O Shri Shyoji Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Surgyan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Subuddi S/O Shri Chhote Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sher Singh S/O Sh. Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Saini S/O Shri Narayan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan