SHEESH RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on January 29,2014

SHEESH RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NISAR ALI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BALAKA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RIZAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMAN KANT VAID VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
TUILA TUDU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
BHARWAD GOKUL TOGABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAJI @ KRISHNUJI LALSANGJI THAKOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
RAM TIRATH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
ABID AND ORS. VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-417] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH NAYAK VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
SAMARJIT SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-317] [REFERRED TO]
MUJIB AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-219] [REFERRED]
AMIT SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-281] [REFERRED]
RAJENDRA YADAV & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-336] [REFERRED]
AVADH RAM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-355] [REFERRED]
MADHO PASI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-507] [REFERRED]
BABU VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
TUILA TUDU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT RAI @ PALTU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE JADIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA DUBEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ALIAS CHANDER, SON OF JILEDAR ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-258] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MAHENDRA SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKRISHNA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-291] [REFERRED TO]
BABLU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-699] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
MULUWA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-126] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellants are original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in S.T. No.12 of 1993. The appellants were convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of one Balram and sentenced to life imprisonment. They have challenged judgment and order dated 29/5/2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1998 by the Rajasthan High Court, confirming their conviction and sentence.
(2.)One Heera son of Surajmal lodged a complaint (Ex. P-7) at Jagal Tan, Village Lapawali on 04/02/1991 at around 3.50 p.m., stating that on 04/02/1991 at 8.00 a.m., he and his son Rameshwar accompanied his other sons Balram and Bhagwan Singh who were going to Hindaun School to see them off. They were standing on the road near the turn between Lapawali and Dhara. While they were waiting for the bus, Rajdhar of village Lapawali, along with others, arrived there in a tractor. Accused-1 Sheesh Ram, Accused-2 Radhey, Accused-3 Battu, Accused-4 Rameshwar (in S.T. No.12 of 1993), Accused-Ram Kunwar, Accused-Hansey and Accused-Har Sahai (in S.T. No.350 of 1992) stopped the tractor. Accused-3 Battu exhorted "do not let this opportunity slip off". All the persons jumped from the tractor. Complainant Heera and his son Rameshwar saved their life by fleeing towards the village. His elder son Balram fled towards the south from the road.
The accused followed them. Accused-2 Radhey caught hold of Balram and assaulted him with a Kulhari. Balram fell down. Later on, Accused-3 Battu dealt an axe blow on his throat. Others too continued assaulting Balram. Balram was badly injured. He succumbed to the injuries. Accused-1 Sheesh Ram followed Bhagwan Singh, caught hold of him and inflicted injuries on him. Other accused also inflicted injuries on him. Under the impression that Bhagwan Singh had died, all the accused left the place. Bhagwan Singh was admitted in the hospital at Karauli. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 302, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 341 of the IPC was registered. Accused Ram Kunwar was arrested on 23/6/1991. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against Ram Kunwar. Another charge-sheet was laid against accused Hanse, Har Sahai and Rajdhar. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as S.T. No.356 of 1992. Against the appellants, charge-sheet was laid on 3/2/1993. After committal of the said case to the Sessions Court, it was numbered as S.T. No. 12 of 1993. Both the cases were tried together as they arose out of the same FIR.

(3.)In support of its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses out of which, four are eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses are PW-2 Khushiram, PW-3 Rameshwar, PW-4 Yadram and PW-5 Bhagwan Singh, who is an injured witness. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and examined seven witnesses in their defence. The trial court convicted all the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Hansey, Har Sahai, Rajdhar and Ram Kunwar. The High Court acquitted Accused Battu of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 of the IPC. His conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC was confirmed. He has not appealed against the order convicting and sentencing him. Appellant Sheesh Ram was acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the IPC. Instead, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, respectively. Appellant Rameshwar was acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Instead, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three moths, respectively. Appellant-Radhey was acquitted of charges under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Instead, he was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months, respectively. This judgment is challenged in the instant appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.