Partly allowed

Taru Ram and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC27 May 2024CRLA/76/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court altered conviction from murder to culpable homicide and reduced sentences for appellants aged 75 and 69, maintaining convictions for other accused but remitting charges for excessive imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC; sentences reduced to time already undergone. Conviction of Taru Ram and Luna Ram modified with sentence

Taru Ram and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988

¶4

Dhama Ram s/o Moti Ram,

¶5

Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram (appeal abated)

¶6

Khajan Ram s/o Moti Ram All Residents of 4 L.K.S., District Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

(At present lodged in Central Jail at Bikaner).

¶8

----Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988

¶14

Taru Ram s/o Chuni Ram

¶15

Luna Ram s/o Chuni Ram

¶16

Jaisam Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)

¶17

Uttama Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)

¶18

Makhan Ram s/o Ruda Ram (appeal abated)

¶19

All Residents of 4 LKS, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶20

----Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Rajasthan

¶23

----Respondent

¶24

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shubham Ojha (Amicus Curiae in CRLA No.97/1988)
	Mr. Bhagat Dadhich (in CRLA No.76/1988)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP Mr. Vinod Bhadu

¶25

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶26

Judgment

¶27

Reserved on 01/05/2024 Pronounced on 27/05/2024

¶28

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

¶29

These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

¶30

(2 of 18)

¶31

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶32

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶33

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted and accused appellants may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him and they be set at liberty.”

¶34

2. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year

¶35

1986 and the present appeals have been pending since the year 1988.

¶36

The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh, in Sessions Case 30/86 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhamaram & Ors.), whereby the accused-appellants Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine with default clause. Accused-appellants Taru Ram and Luna Ram have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC and sentenced for different period of imprisonments, ranging to maximum one year’s rigorous imprisonment.

¶37

3.1. Other accused Kartar and Jag Ram, though were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 323/149 & 324/149 IPC, were released, while extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶38

3.2. Accused-appellant Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram had expired on 07.11.2005 and accused-appellants Jaisa Ram, Uttama Ram and Makhan Ram had also expired, and therefore, the appeals qua them stood dismissed as abated.

¶39

(3 of 18)

¶40

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶41

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶42

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Shubham Ojha, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Bhagat Dhadhich, learned counsel for the appellants, are that on 21.03.1986, in the morning, complainant Chetan Ram (PW-1) submitted an oral information before the concerned police station, to the effect that on the previous day i.e. 20.03.1986, after sunset, while the sons of Hari Ram (brother of the informant) were returning back home, on the way back, one Ram and Khajan indulged into a fight.

¶43

4.1. As per the informant, he was told by Ram that when he picked up some of Grams ( Chana ) from the crop of Ramchandra, he (Ram) was abused by Khajan. Thereupon, Hari Ram went to Makhan Ram and complained to him about the same, whereupon, Makhan Ram threatened of killing Hari Ram. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m., Khajan, Dhamaram and Makhanram, armed with gandasi, Kasiya and lathi , came to Hari Ram and starting beating him in front of his own house. Dhamaram inflicted gandasi blow on the head of Hari Ram, as a result whereof, Hari Ram fell down; other accused persons also inflicted blows on Hari Ram. Thereupon, the informant himself, his wife-Sarbati, Het Ram, Pappu and Banwari (sons of Hari Ram) and Om Prakash (son of informant) rushed to the place of incident. On this, Lunia, Taru, Kartar, Utmaram, Jaisaram, Makhanram and Jagram, armed with lathis also reached there.

¶44

4.2. The informant further stated that he and his family alongwith others, tried to rescue Hari Ram, however, they were also beaten by the accused persons, in the course whereof, the informant and others also sustained injuries. The informant and others, while

¶45

(4 of 18)

¶46

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶47

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶48

telling the accused persons that Hari Ram is dead, pleaded to leave him, whereupon the accused persons left the place of the incident. As per the informant, Hari Ram was in an unconscious state and his condition became critical, whereupon he was admitted in a hospital on 21.03.1986 itself. As per the informant, the said incident was a result of enmity between Hari Ram and the accused persons, which prompted them to make efforts to kill Hari Ram.

¶49

On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR bearing No.29/86 (Ex.D-2) dated 21.03.1986 was registered at Police Station, Pilibanga, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 & 323 IPC, and the investigation accordingly commenced thereafter. However, on the same date i.e. 21.03.1986, Hari Ram breathed his last in NSA Ward. Thus, after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 323, 323/149 & 148 IPC.

¶50

The learned Trial Court framed the charge against accusedappellant Dhamaram and Khajanaram for the offence under Section 324 IPC, whereas against other accused persons, charge was framed for the offence under Section 324/149 IPC, and the said charges were read over to the accused-appellants; the accused-appellant denied the same, and sought due trial, and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter before the learned Trial Court.

¶51

During the course of trial, the evidence of 11 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 36 documents were exhibited on

¶52

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶53

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶54

(5 of 18)

¶55

behalf of the prosecution, whereas, the accused-appellants exhibited 7 documents in support of defence; whereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.

¶56

Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.1988, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accusedappellants.

¶57

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988 , learned counsel for the accused-appellants-Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram submitted that the injury caused by weapon does not match with the medical report and contradiction between the statements of the eye witnesses and the medical report is apparent on the face of record.

¶58

9.1. It was further submitted that the police started the investigation before registration of the FIR, and after registration of the FIR, the report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on the next day, and therefore no explanation was furnished by the prosecution in this regard.

¶59

9.2. It was also submitted that P.W-1 Chetan Ram in his testimony stated that the accused broke the teeth and jaw of the deceased, but the same did not come in the medical report of the deceased, and therefore, there is a clear contradiction in the statements of

¶60

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶61

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶62

(6 of 18)

¶63

PW-1. It was further submitted that all the eye witnesses are family members of the deceased, and therefore, the is no independent eye witness to the incident in question.

¶64

9.3. It was also submitted that there was no electricity at the place of incident and the incident had happened at around 7 PM, and therefore, the same raises suspicion about happening of the alleged incident, and further casts a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was further submitted that in the entire story of the prosecution, there is nothing which could indicate the intention/motive of the accused to commit the murder of deceased-Hari Ram, and therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out against the accused-appellant.

¶65

9.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Stalin Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2020, decided on 09.09.2020)

¶66

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, learned counsel for accused-appellants-Taru Ram and Luna Ram, submitted that the accused-Taru & Luna Ram were not the main accused persons, as to causing injury to the deceased, and they have been convicted for the injury caused to the family members of the deceased, which being simple in nature, were not dangerous to life.

¶67

10.1. It was further submitted that as per the prosecution story, the accused reached the place of the alleged incident at a later point of time, and therefore, it cannot be said that he was having common intention alongwith other accused persons to commit the

¶68

(7 of 18)

¶69

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶70

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶71

crime in question. It was also submitted that it is not possible as there is no recovery of weapon from the both accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries in question were caused by them.

¶72

10.2. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment extended the benefit of probation to accused-Kartar and Jagram. It was also submitted that accused Taru Ram is 71 years old and Luna Ram 69 years old and both have undergone the judicial custody from 01.04.1986 to 05.06.1986 against the 1 year’s sentence; the case is 38 years old and both the accused have no criminal antecedents.

¶73

10.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Meh Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 271/1982, decided on 05.11.2007).

¶74

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988 , submitted that there are injured eyewitnesses of the incident, who clearly supported the prosecution story, during the examination, and no contradiction was found in statements of those witnesses.

¶75

11.1. It was further submitted that all the accused were having motive to commit the murder, as they were carrying the weapons to commit the crime in question, and being driven by such motive, they caused injuries to deceased-Hari Ram, as a result whereof he

¶76

(8 of 18)

¶77

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶78

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶79

died, and therefore, the accused-appellants were rightly prosecuted under Sections 302 & 302/32 IPC respectively and punished with Life Imprisonment.

¶80

As against the submissions made on behalf of the accused-

¶81

appellants in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused, namely, Taru Ram and Luna Ram caused injuries to the injured eye-witnesses and the same was recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment.

¶82

12.1. It was also submitted that the accused came to the place of incident armed with lathi and other things, to cause injury and the said injury caused by them to the witnesses, which is also reflected in the medical report, and therefore, they were rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment.

¶83

In support of such submissions, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the following judgments :-

¶84

(a) Kartik Malhar Vs State of Bihar 2017 (11) SC 129;

¶85

(b) Dilip Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364;

¶86

(c) Appabhai & Anr Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696;

¶87

(d) Alladeen Vs State of Rajasthan 2016 (2) Cr.L.R (Raj) 638 (D.B.) and;

¶88

(e) Abdul Sayed Vs State of Rajasthan 1979 Cr.L.R (Raj) 43 (D.B.)

¶89

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶90

This Court observes that in the instant appeals, the accusedappellants have been convicted vide the impugned judgment dated 18.01.1988 for the offences under Section 302, 302/34, 147, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC, and sentenced as above.

¶91

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶92

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶93

(9 of 18)

¶94

This Court further observes that PW.1-Chetan Ram (complainant) has rendered the contradictory statement in the cross-examination, wherein he has stated that the concerned Station House Officer (S.H.O) firstly came to the hospital and then took the thumb impression on the report, but apart from that, the statements of the PW.-11-Prithvi Singh (Investigation Officer) were recorded in which he has stated that the FIR was lodged at 4.15 AM and then the investigation commenced, and therefore, the said minor contradiction in the deposition of PW.1 cannot question the veracity of the prosecution case.

¶95

This Court also observes that there are 5 eye-witnesses in the case i.e. PW.1-Chetan Ram, P.W.2-Banwari Lal, PW.3-Om Prakash, PW.4-Het Ram, and PW.10-Sarbati Devi. This Court has carefully perused the statement of the said witnesses.

¶96

17.1. PW.1 stated that he was at home along with his wife (PW.10) and son (PW.3). He has further stated firstly, the accused-appellants-Dhama Ram, Khajan Ram & Makhan Ram s/o Moti Ram reached the place of incident and thereafter, the other accused came armed with weapon and caused the injuries to the deceased.

¶97

17.2. P.W.2, & PW.4 (sons of the deceased) stated that on the previous day, while they were returning back home, on the way back, one Ram and Khajan were seen to have indulged into a fight regarding to picking up (Upaad) the Gram (Chana) from the fields of Ramchandra; thereafter, deceased-Hari Ram went to accusedMakhan Ram and complained to him about the same, whereupon, Makhan Ram threatened of killing Hari Ram. Thereafter, at about

¶98

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶99

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶100

(10 of 18)

¶101

7:00 p.m., Khajan, Dhamaram and Makhanram, armed with gandasi, Kasiya and lathi , and caused the injury to the deceased and when they came to the place of the incident, the deceased was seen to have fallen down and that they saw the entire incident.

¶102

17.3. P.W.3, & PW.10 stated that when they heard a noise, they immediately reached the place of the incident and they saw the accused causing injury to the deceased by weapons.

¶103

This Court further observes that when the eye witnesses i.e. PW.1, P.W.2, PW.3, PW.4, and PW.10 intervened in the fight to protect the deceased from the accused-appellants, then the accused-appellant caused the injuries to them as well and the said injuries were recorded in evidence, and therefore, the same leaves no room for any doubt that the said eye witnesses were present at the time of commission of the crime in question and, even the minor contradiction cannot render such statements as unworthy of being believed, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1396; relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:-

¶104

“ 28. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law. The statement of an injured eye-witness is an important piece of evidence which cannot be easily discarded by a Court. Minor discrepancies do not matter. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 where conviction of the accused by the trial court, inter alia, under Section 302, was set aside by the High Court on the so called discrepancies of an injured witness this court while allowing the State's appeal against the acquittal said this:

¶105

(11 of 18)

¶106

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶107

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶108

“9. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence. The circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to the evidence of the injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential.”

¶109

29. The reasons assigned for disbelieving the statement of PW-2 by the High Court are not correct. The High Court discredits the statement of PW-2 because of the discrepancies in her earlier statement given under Section 161 Cr. P.C., and the one given in her examination-in-chief. This as we have already discussed was not sufficient to totally discredit an injured eye witness. Apart from this eye-witness, there were other eyewitnesses as well, which we have referred above. Further, there is also the recovery made of the weapons and the blood-stained cloth of the accused. There is nothing to doubt either the recovery or the manner in which the recovery has been made. The conclusion derived by the High Court that the assailants were not having common intention or common object of killing deceased Chandernath is not entirely correct. ”

¶110

This Court further observes that a perusal of the statements of PW.6-Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, the injury no.3 was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased and the injury caused to victim is clearly inflicted by the weapon of the accused, and therefore, any minor contradiction between the statements of the eyewitnesses and medical report, cannot be considered to be a ground sufficient for aquittal, because the oral testimony is more important, in the given circumstances, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab,

¶111

(12 of 18)

¶112

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶113

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶114

(2012) 10 SCC 476, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as

¶115

hereunder:-

¶116

“ 10. So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved. (Vide State of U.P. v. Hari Chand [(2009) 13 SCC 542: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1112] and Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 421 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 241].) ”

¶117

Now comes the issues relating to motive/intention of the accused, to commit the crime in question, as prior to happening of the incident in question, a fight took place between the deceased’s family and the accused in relation to picking up (Upaad ) of Gram ( Chana ) from the fields of Ramchandra, and thereafter, the accused-appellants Dhama Ram, Khajan Ram and Makhan Ram came with the weapons i.e. gandasi, Kasiya and lathi and caused injury to the deceased.

¶118

20.1. This Court also observes that as per Ex.P/1-Postmortem Report, the death of deceased was caused, as a result of his being in coma due to the injuries in question, but the record does not indicate any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to commit the crime in question. This Court further observes that in

¶119

(13 of 18)

¶120

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶121

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶122

the entire incident, total 3 injuries were caused, and only injury no.3 has been stated to be grievous in nature and the deceased died on the next day. The entire incident in question shows that there was no prior preparation of committing the murder of the deceased because the appellants were carrying lathi only, and therefore, the lack of the prior preparation to commit the murder does not fulfil the essential ingredients of Section 300 of the IPC, thus, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC seems to be not appropriate. As regards the weapons in question, the same are nothing but tools regularly used for agricultural purposes in the villages.

¶123

At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Udham, (2019) 10 SCC 300, as hereunder:-

¶124

“12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analysed on the touchstone of three tests viz. crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test. Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of the accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of the crime, state of victim. Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of the criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of the criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defence, state of mind, instigation by the deceased or any one from the deceased group, adequately represented in the trial, disagreement by a Judge in the appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list).

¶125

(14 of 18)

¶126

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶127

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶128

13. Additionally, we may note that under the crime test, seriousness needs to be ascertained. The seriousness of the crime may be ascertained by (i) bodily integrity of the victim; (ii) loss of material support or amenity; (iii) extent of humiliation; and (iv) privacy breach.”

¶129

21.1 This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bhanwara Ram and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 83/1986 , decided on 15.09.2022), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder-

¶130

“3 8. ...... accused appellant-Babu Ram was 20 years at the time of incident. Now, they are about 58 and 57 years old respectively. From a humanitarian perspective, it does not seem justifiable to send them to jail again, more particularly considering that they have been entangled in court proceedings for a long drawn-out period of 36 years. The accused-appellants Bhanwara Ram and Babu Ram were 21 and 20 years old respectively at the relevant point of time when the offence was committed, thus, their case can be considered for extending benefit of probation but since they have already suffered incarceration for a period of 18 months, therefore, instead of grant of probation to the accusedappellants, this Court deems it appropriate to consider their case for reduction of sentence.

¶131

43. As per the overall discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the observations made herein above, we hold that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is not proper and therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court, to this extent, deserve to be quashed and set aside. The conviction of the surviving appellants Bhanwara Ram and Babu Ram is altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The period of sentence is reduced to the period they have undergone till now which is around 18 months; which in the firm opinion of this Court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the peculiar circumstances of this case.”

¶132

(15 of 18) [CRLA-97/1988]

¶133

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶134

21.2. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of

¶135

Bimal Kumar Khetan Vs. State of Orissa (CRLA Nos. 455 of

¶136

2008 and 417 of 2008, decided on 29.09.2023), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder-;

¶137

“33..........we are inclined to take a lenient view inasmuch as accused Kantadevi Khetan is presently of advanced age being nearly 65 years old. Similarly accused Sunil Kumar Khetan and Sujata Khetan are also aged nearly 50 years each. All of them were in prison for sometime during trial. Having regard to the sentence imposed nearly 15 years ago and also the aforementioned factors, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be best served if the sentence is confined to the period already undergone by them instead of sending them to jail to serve the remaining part of their sentence at this distance of time”.

¶138

Apart from the aforesaid, the following are certain prominent aspects of the case, which need specific mention in the present adjudication:

¶139

(i) The incident in question had happened in the year 1986 and the FIR in connection therewith was registered on 21.03.1986.

¶140

(ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the learned Trial Court on 18.01.1988.

¶141

(iii) The accused-appellant-Dhama Ram was arrested on 01.04.1986 and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.08.1989 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 294/1989, and therefore, he had undergone the custody for a period of more than 3 years.

¶142

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶143

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶144

(16 of 18)

¶145

(iv) The accused-appellant-Khajan Ram was arrested on 01.04.1986 and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court was suspended by this Hon’ble Court on 23.02.1988 passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 68/1988, and therefore, the said accused-appellant had undergone the custody for almost 2 years.

¶146

(v) The age of accused-appellant-Dhama Ram is 75 years and that of accused-appellant Khajan Ram is 63 years. 23. This Court further observes that apart from the age of both the accused, i.e. 75 years and 63 years, respectively, they have undergone the aforesaid imprisonment, and the present appeal is 36 years old, and thus, now it would not be appropriate to sent back the accused persons in custody at this stage. This Court also observes that the accused-appellants do not have any criminal antecedents and have also not violated the conditions of the orders suspending their sentences, till today.

¶147

This Court also observes that the alleged act of the appellants does not fulfil the essential ingredients of Section 300 IPC because in the entire incident, total 3 injuries were caused, and only injury no.3 has been stated to be grievous in nature and the deceased died on the next day. Furthermore, the alleged act of the appellants was not sufficient to cause the death in question, as the injuries were not imminently dangerous.

¶148

24.1. This Court further observes that in the present case, though the appellants might have the knowledge that the said act would likely to cause death, but the probability of death was not such, which could show that the appellants were having the intention to

¶149

(17 of 18)

¶150

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶151

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶152

cause death of the deceased. The incident in question, as alleged to have happened, shows that there was no prior preparation on the part of the appellants of committing the murder of the deceased because the appellants were carrying lathi only . Since the component of intention on the part of the appellants is clearly absent in the present case, therefore, the same falls within the definition of Culpable Homicide as provided under Section 299 IPC.

¶153

24.2. This Court, while taking into consideration the overall factual matrix, including the evidence, age of accused, time of incident, motive behind commission of the crime, precedent laws etc., decides both the instant appeals in the following manner.

¶154

Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/1988 is partly allowed . Accordingly, the conviction of the surviving appellants Dhama Ram and Khajan Ram is altered from Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 302/34 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The period of sentence is reduced to the period they have undergone till now, which in the opinion of this Court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the peculiar circumstances of this case. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶155

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988, appellants-Taru Ram and Luna Ram were convicted and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment as they caused the injury to the victim and they reached the place of incident at a later point of time, after the injury was sustained by the deceased.

¶156

(18 of 18)

¶157

[2024:RJ-JD:19125-DB]

¶158

[CRLA-97/1988]

¶159

26.1. This Court observes that both the accused-appellants have already undergone the custody from 01.04.1986 to 05.06.1986, and the appellant-accused-Taru Ram aged about 71 years and appellant-accused- Luna Ram is 69 years old.

¶160

26.2. This Court observes that both the accused have undergone custody for a period of 2 months and 4 days against the sentence of one year awarded to them, and that, as per the record, they are having no criminal antecedents and nor they have violated any condition of the orders suspending their sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, till today.

¶161

26.3. Consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 76/1988 is

¶162

partly allowed . Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-appellants Taru Ram and Luna Ram under Sections 143, 323/149 and 324/149 IPC, as above, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants in the said appeal is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶163

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶164

This Court is thankful to Mr. Shubham Ojha, who has rendered his assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused-appellants, in the present adjudication.

¶165

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶166

SKant/-

Taru Ram and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taru Ram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs M/S.Giutam Trading Company

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs M/S. Sajjan Trading Company

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs M/S. Khetlagi Floor and Oil Mills

Adaki Kumari Alias Adro Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Hasti Petro Chemical and Shipping Ltd. Vs Union of India

Kanahaiya Lal @ Karan Vs State of Rajasthan