HEERA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-6-87 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellant Heera Ram for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 325/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and accused Meh Ram, Karna Ram, Mangu alias Mangi Lal and Sri Ram for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced accused Heera Ram for the offence under Section 302, and other appellants Sri Ram, Mangu, Karna Ram and Meh Ram for the offence under Section 302/149 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment; two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C.; two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 325/149, I.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 323/149, I.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused Bhanwara and Dhanna Ram of all the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The appellants alongwith Bhanwara Ram and Dhanna Ram were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, for committing the murder of Chandra Ram and inflicting simple and grievous injuries to Jeewan Ram, Smt. Gorli and Chotthu Ram. The case of the prosecution is that on 3-8-84, at about 4.00 p.m., Chandra Ram was grazing his she-goats in the Gochar land of village Barnail. Accused Heera Ram, Meh Ram, Sri Ram, Karna Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Dhanna and Mangu alias Mangi Lal, armed with Lathis, came there and started beating Chandra Ram, Jeewan Ram, Smt. Gurli and Chotthu Ram tried to intervene and rescue Chandra Ram but the accused, also, inflicted injuries to them. Bhera Ram - the son of deceased Chandra Ram - came there on hearing the alarm and on seeing him, the accused ran away. The injured were thereafter brought to Gachhipura Hospital in a cart by Bhera Ram. By that time, Chandra Ram succumbed to the injuries. The injured were attended by the doctor at Gachhipura Hospital and were referred to Jawahar Lal Nehra Hospital, Ajmer. The motive for committing the murder of Chandra Ram with the accused was that there was previous enmity between the parties with respect to the allotment of the land and earlier, also, on two occasions the accused parties tried to dispossess the complainant party and gave them beatings. The prosecution were lodged against the accused on the earlier occasions for the aforesaid overt-acts. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. The nature of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the statements of five eye witnesses, viz., PW-1 Bhera Ram, PW-2 Jeewna, PW-3 Smt. Gorli, PW-4 Jeewan Ram and PW-5 Chothu Ram, out of whom PW-3 Smt. Gorli, PW-4 Jeewan Ram and PW-5 Chothu Ram are the injured witnesses who received the injuries during this incident. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Shiv Prakash Bohra, who examined the injured and, also, conducted post-mortem on the deadbody of Chandra Ram. PW-6 Bhoonda Ram is the Motbir witness to the preparation of the site-plan, the arrest memo of the accused and the other memos. PW-7 mangi Lal and PW-9 Shivdan Ram are the two witnesses of the recoveries of the Lathis on the information and at the instance of the accused. PW-10 Nawal Kishore was the Station House Officer, who conducted the Investigation and presented the challan. PW-11 Suraj Mal was the Malkhana Incharge, posted at Police Station, Gachhipura, in whose possession the articles remained in the sealed condition. PW-12 Dr. B. L. Bhatia was the Medical Jurist, posted at Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, who referred the case of Chothu Ram for X-ray examination and on X-ray examination, two fractures were found on his right leg and there were, also, the fractures of his 7th, 8th and 9th ribs. The accused, in their defence, examined five witnesses, viz., DW-1 Sumer Singh, DW 2 Srawan Singh, DW-3 Ram Singh, DW-4 Laxman Singh and DW-5 Mangu. The case of the accused, set-out in the defence, was that on the relevant day, at about 4.00 p.m., Mangu, Laxman Singh, Kishna Ram, Chandra, Chothu, Smt. Gorli, Jeewan Ram, Pabu and certain other persons were digging the Nadi (small water pond); Mangu and Shiv Ram alongwith Pabu Ram, Shiv Dan, Srawan, Moti and ten to fifteen more shepherds carne there alongwith their cattles; the cattles started drinking water in the Nadi; four-five she-goats of the shepherds entered into the field of Chandra Ram; Mangu and Sri Ram tried to take-out the she-goats from the field and when they were returning, accused Chandra Ram, Jeewan Ram and Smt. Gorli, armed with Lathis, came there and asked them why their she-goats entered the field, upon which some altercations took-place and Chandra Ram abused him; after abusing Mangu Ram, he inflicted injury to him and started beating him; the injury inflicted by Chandra Ram was received by Mangu on his thigh and the right side of his waist; Shiv Ram received injury on his right hand; the other persons i.e. the shepherds thereafter gave beatings to Chandra Ram, Jeewan Ram and Smt. Gorli. The defence story, put by the accused, was not believed by the learned Sessions Judge and he, after trial, convicted and sentenced the aforesaid five appellants, as stated above, but acquitted co-accused Bhanwara Ram and Dhanna Ram. It is against this judgment dated 29-6-87, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences that the appellants have preferred these appeals.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court was not justified in disbelieving the case of the appellants set-up in the defence and the incident never took place as alleged by the prosecution but actually it took place near Sadolai Nadi and the injuries to the complainant party were not inflicted by the appellants but the same were inflicted by the shepherds when the complainant party inflicted injuries to Mangu and Shiv Ram and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants and they deserve to be acquitted. Alternatively, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no common object of killing the deceased and the incident took place at the spur of moment and the intention, at the most, which can be gathered from the evidence produced by the prosecution, can be to cause simple and grievous injuries to the injured and not to cause death of any one of them and, therefore, the appellants can, at the best, be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 325/149, I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.