HANUMANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two appeals filed by the accused appellants Hanumana Ram and Mithu Singh alias Virendra Kumar against the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 25.11.1985, whereby he convicted both the accused appellants as under and are being disposed-of by this common judgment: Accused Hanumana Ram : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_202_LAWS(RAJ)10_2009_1.html</FRM> All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that on 23.10.1984 at 7.30 PM, Sawa, PW 3, uncle of deceased Bhanwar Singh filed the FIR Ex.P.4 at Police Station, Nosra, District Jalore that on the same day at about 4-5 P.M., informant Sawa Ram, his elder brother Asu Ram, Asu Ram's son Bhanwar Singh and Bhanwar Singh's wife Chandra were cultivating their field Khokhari at village Bhanwrani. Both the accused Mithu Singh and Hanumana Ram came to the field of complainant in a tractor and started abusing Bhanwar Singh. Accused Hanumana Ram inflicted 'Dharia' blow on the wife of Bhanwar Singh and on being intervened by Bhanwar Singh, accused Mithu Singh fired at Bhanwar Singh, whereby Bhanwar Singh fell down. Both the accused Mithu Singh and Hanumana Ram ran away towards village Bhanwrani. One day prior to the incident, accused Hanumana Ram also abused Bhanwar Singh, who is the neighbourer of the complainant's well. Injured Bhanwar Singh and Chandra were taken to the village Bhanwrani in the tractor but on the way, Bhanwar Singh died. Upon this report, the police registered a case u/ss.302, 324, 323 and 447 r/w 34 IPC and commenced investigation. On the next day, the injuries of Chandra were examined. The autopsy of the dead body of Bhanwar Singh was conducted. The recovery of cartridge, soil, clothes etc. was made. Both the accused appellants were arrested. Upon information of the accused Bhanwar Singh, 8MM single barrel rifle was recovered. The tractor bearing No.RJN 252 was also recovered and upon information of accused Hanumana Ram, 'Dharia' was recovered. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Mithu Singh u/ss.302, 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.27, Arms Act, whereas accused Hanumana Ram was chargesheeted u/ss.302 r/w 34, 326, 324 and 323 IPC in the court of learned CJM, Jalore, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After hearing the arguments on charge, accused Mithu Singh was charged u/ss.302 & 447 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and accused Hanumana Ram was charged u/s.302/34, 326, 324, 323 & 447 IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s.313 CrPC. They produced three witnesses in defence. After hearing the arguments, learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellants as above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused appellants have not questioned the homicidal death of deceased Bhanwar Singh and also the grievous injury caused by sharp weapon on the person of Chandra wife of deceased Bhanwar Singh but their submission, which is based on the statements of accused u/s.313 CrPC, is that during the scuffle, accused Mithu Singh fired in the air but later on, injuries were inflicted with gun shot on legs and thighs. According to the learned counsel, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill deceased Bhanwar Singh. According to them, it is also stated in the FIR that one day prior to the incident, accused Hanumana Ram who is said to have abused deceased Bhanwar Singh, told that he will beat him. During the course of scuffle, accused also received injuries and both the accused were of 17 years of age at the time of incident but by that time, under the Juvenile Justice Act, the age of juvenile was 16 years, which has now been raised to 18 years. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the case of the accused does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC and in support of their contention, they have placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu alias Hari Om v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2479. Learned counsel for the accused Hanumana Ram has submitted that the accused cannot be convicted u/s.302 with the aid of Sec.34 IPC because his act is only of inflicting grievous injury with sharp weapon i.e.'Dharia' on the right ring finger and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Both the learned counsel have further submitted that the doctor has also opined that the injuries on the person of deceased Bhanwar Singh were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.