DAMODAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2003-9-108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
September 18,2003
DAMODAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
YASH PAL MITTAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]KEHAR SINGHTS VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
AJAY AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
AJAY AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAMSINH BAVAJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
E K CHANDRASENAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SOM NATH THAPA [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SOM NATH THAPA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SURENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-72] [REFERRED TO]KRISHNA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU GOPE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. BRIJ [LAWS(MPH)-2004-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
BAIRA ALIAS BHIMNATH SINGH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-5-139] [REFERRED]
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/CBI/SPE SILCHAR VS. T Z KONYAK [LAWS(GAU)-2011-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KRISHNA YADAV ALIAS BIGGA MAHATA ALIAS MAMA @ MULLA [LAWS(PAT)-2012-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
ASTHAPADA SARDER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
MARWADI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH BHAI ALIAS DILIYO HARMANBHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-583] [REFERRED]
DEBARAJ BASANTIA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH VS. NIRMAL GILL [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
BANTU POSHETTY VS. SYED AHMED [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
MUKTI NARAYAN CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. LALTU MAHAPATRA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF DELHI VS. SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU [LAWS(DLH)-2006-2-207] [REFERRED TO]
NETAJI ACHYUT SHINDE (PATIL) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN MISHRA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAY KAILASH PUROHIT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH SINGH VS. SANTOSH IYER [LAWS(CAL)-2013-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-256] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHBHAI ALIAS DILIYO HARMANBHAICHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-230] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG MEHROTRA SON OF GOPALJI MEHROTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-168] [REFERRED TO]
NARESHBHAI VISHNUBHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KACCHAP VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, JAIL & DISASTER MANAGEMENT [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-3-189] [REFERRED TO]
K. C. RAMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-2-261] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAPBHAI HAMIRBHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2012-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. RAJAT KUMAR [LAWS(UTN)-2008-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
LAXI JAHU MAHALA VS. U T OF DADRA and NAGAR HAVELI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV NANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF DELHI VS. SIDHARTHA VASHISHT [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNA PATAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2004-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)In these three appeals the factual matrix relates to the same incident and the judgment impugned being the same they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)Appellant-Munna (in Crl. A.45/2002) faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302, appellant-Balak Dass (in Crl. A. No.46/2002) under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 114, and appellant-Damodar (in Crl. A. No. 1190/2001) under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Accused appellant-Munna was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, 302 read with Section 120B while other two appellants Damodar and Balak Dass (A-4 and A-2 respectively) were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B. Appellant-Balak Dass was additionally found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. One Jagdish who also faced trial, was convicted and sentenced. Though he had preferred an appeal before the High Court, but the same was held to have abated on account of appellants death.
(3.)They were alleged to be perpetrators of homicidal death of one Guru Ram Ratan Giri (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) an octogenarian Sadhu. The motive of crime was stated to be property dispute. On the basis of information given by Shiv Prasad (PW-15) on 18-10-1990, the fateful day, law was set in motion. According to the informant the deceased had gone to repair a cycle. When he did not return for long time, informant went to search for him. When they were returning on the cycle, they found station wagon RSZ 5253 was being driven by accused-Munna rashly. The deceased asked Shiv Prasad to get down from the cycle. The vehicle was being driven by Munna whereas accused-appellants Damodar and Balak Dass were accompanying him along with others. On being instructed by accused-appellant Balak Dass, Munna ran the vehicle over the deceased. At the spot, accused-Jagdish (A-3) who had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, was present and he came in a scooter made sure that the deceased was no longer alive and they all ran away. Another disciple of the deceased named Santosh Giri (PW6) also witnessed the occurrence. Investigation was undertaken by Setha Ram (PW-16). The summom bonum of materials collected during investigation reveals involvement of four accused persons named above and others. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed. Initially on the basis of information lodged, investigation commenced in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, later on after the death of the deceased the case was covered into one for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Seventeen witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited to substantiate prosecution version. The accused persons pleaded innocence and 5 documents were exhibited to substantiate their plea of innocence. On consideration of the materials on record, Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer found the accused-appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. Accused-Munna was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Balak Dass was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 120B and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Jagdish was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Similar sentence was imposed on accused-Damodar.
(2.)Appellant-Munna (in Crl. A.45/2002) faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302, appellant-Balak Dass (in Crl. A. No.46/2002) under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 114, and appellant-Damodar (in Crl. A. No. 1190/2001) under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Accused appellant-Munna was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, 302 read with Section 120B while other two appellants Damodar and Balak Dass (A-4 and A-2 respectively) were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B. Appellant-Balak Dass was additionally found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. One Jagdish who also faced trial, was convicted and sentenced. Though he had preferred an appeal before the High Court, but the same was held to have abated on account of appellants death.
(3.)They were alleged to be perpetrators of homicidal death of one Guru Ram Ratan Giri (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) an octogenarian Sadhu. The motive of crime was stated to be property dispute. On the basis of information given by Shiv Prasad (PW-15) on 18-10-1990, the fateful day, law was set in motion. According to the informant the deceased had gone to repair a cycle. When he did not return for long time, informant went to search for him. When they were returning on the cycle, they found station wagon RSZ 5253 was being driven by accused-Munna rashly. The deceased asked Shiv Prasad to get down from the cycle. The vehicle was being driven by Munna whereas accused-appellants Damodar and Balak Dass were accompanying him along with others. On being instructed by accused-appellant Balak Dass, Munna ran the vehicle over the deceased. At the spot, accused-Jagdish (A-3) who had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, was present and he came in a scooter made sure that the deceased was no longer alive and they all ran away. Another disciple of the deceased named Santosh Giri (PW6) also witnessed the occurrence. Investigation was undertaken by Setha Ram (PW-16). The summom bonum of materials collected during investigation reveals involvement of four accused persons named above and others. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed. Initially on the basis of information lodged, investigation commenced in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, later on after the death of the deceased the case was covered into one for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Seventeen witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited to substantiate prosecution version. The accused persons pleaded innocence and 5 documents were exhibited to substantiate their plea of innocence. On consideration of the materials on record, Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer found the accused-appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. Accused-Munna was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Balak Dass was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 120B and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Jagdish was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Similar sentence was imposed on accused-Damodar.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.