CRLA/21/1995 of RAM CHARAN AND ORS Vs STATE on 20 December 2024

Judgment

Reserved On

Pronounced On

::

11/12/2024

::20/12/2024

(Per Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved byJudgment and Order dated 21.12.1994, whereby the AdditionalDistrict & Sessions Judge Bayana, Bharatpur in Sessions CaseNo.74 of 1991, has convicted and sentenced the accusedappellants. Out of the five appellants, who have been convicted,appellants Ram Charan and Ramjilal have expired and the appeal now survives against appellants Maharaj Singh, Damo and Ramesh only. The accused-appellants Maharaj Singh, Damo and Ramesh were convicted and sentenced as under:- Maharaj Singh:

“U/s.302 IPC:Lifeimprisonment, to pay a fine ofRs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.

U/s.148 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to paya fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

Damo:

“U/s.302 r.w.149 IPC:Lifeimprisonment, to pay afine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergosix months rigorous imprisonment.fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergosix months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s.148 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to paya fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s.448 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment

Ramesh:

“U/s.302 r.w.149 IPC:Lifeimprisonment, to pay afine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergosix months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s.148 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment, to paya fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

U/s.448 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment

U/s.323 IPC: Six months rigorous imprisonment”

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that anincident took place on 13.07.1991 between the accused side andthe complainant side. FIR of the same was lodged by thecomplainant side on 15.07.1991 at 7:15 PM. Rameshwar-deceasedexpired on 14.07.1991. The cross FIR was lodged on 19.07.1991, in which challan was filed under Section 307 read with Section 149& 452 IPC against the complainant party. After due investigation,Police filed charge-sheet against fourteen persons. Evidence ofwitnesses was recorded. As many as 14 witnesses were examinedon behalf of the prosecution and 22 documents were exhibited. Indefence, two witnesses were examined and 21 documents wereexhibited. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hasacquitted nine accused and has convicted five accused. Aggrievedby which, appellants have preferred this appeal. Out of fiveaccused so convicted, Ram Charan and Ramjilal have expired andthe present appeal survives only against three accused-appellantsi.e. Maharaj Singh, Damo and Ramesh.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that causeof death was injury No.1 which was assigned to Ram Charan. TheTrial Court has erred in convicting Maharaj Singh for offence underSection 302 of IPC. It is contended that the injury assigned toMaharaj Singh was a blowwith a stick on the head of thedeceased but none of the witnesses, including the Doctor, hasdeposed that the injury caused by Maharaj Singh was dangerousto life or resulted into death of the deceased. It is contended thatthree persons from the accused side namely, Bhabhuti, RamCharan and Damo received injuries and the injuries received bythe accused side are not explained by the prosecution. It iscontended that the complainant side was the aggressor andchallan has been filed against them for offence under Section 307read with Section 149 and 452 IPC which goes to show that thecomplainant side was the aggressor.It is also contended that the Police filed charge-sheet against fourteen persons, out of whichnine have been acquitted which goes to show that the complainantside has falsely implicated the accused persons including theappellants. It is also contended that the dispute pertained to afarm land which was mortgaged by the accused side with thecomplainant and when they went with money to take back theirfarm land, dispute arose between the parties. It is also contendedthat eye-witnesses are all related witnesses. No one has given anyexplanation with regard to the injuries caused to the accused side.They have tried to change the place of occurrence.

4. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance onSurendra Singh & Os. Vs. State of Rajasthan in DB CriminalAppeal No.384 of 2018 decided by the Division Bench of RajasthanHigh Court on 09.01.2024, Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State ofRajasthan2023 10 WLC 531 and Nand Lal And Ors. Vs. TheState of Chhattisgarh2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant thatthere is ample evidence that the accused-appellants attacked thedeceased and caused injuries to deceased. Merely because thetrial court has acquitted nine co-accused, does not point towardsnon-involvement of the present appellants.

6. We have considered the contentions and have perusedthe evidence as well as the record.

7. From perusal of the record, it is evident that there is adelay of 60 hours in lodging of FIR. It is also evident that a crossFIR was also lodged, wherein charge-sheet has been filed againstthe complainant side for offence under Section 307 read with

Section 149 of IPC. Thus, the incident took place and both thesides sustained injuries. Since FIR was lodged for offence underSection 452 IPC against the complainant side, Police initially cameto the conclusion that the complainant side was the aggressor andwent to the house of the appellants. PW1-(Devi Singh), who isnephew of the deceased and is also the complainant, has deniedentering into fight with the accused side. He has also deniedhaving seen injuries on the accused side. Bhabhuti, Damo & RamCharan had sustained injuries, but this witness has denied seeingthose injuries. This witness has stated that when he reached atthe place of occurrence, fight was going on. However from thecross-examination, it is revealed that his house is far away fromthe place of occurrence and the place of occurrence is not visiblefrom the place where the witness is stated to be sitting. Thiswitness is, thus, not the eye-witness and has reached at the placeof occurrence after the fight started. PW3- (Raja Ram) has statedthat when he went to the ‘Bada’ of Rameshwar, he found fourteenaccused persons there. Accused Ram Charan was armed with‘Farsa’ and the others were holding ‘Lathi’. This witness has statedthat he was the first to reach ‘Bada’ of Rameshwar and thatBhagwan Singh and Janak Singh reached after him. This witnesshas denied causing injuries to the accused side. This witness hasalso denied the suggestion that the complainant side went to thehouse of the accused side and caused injuries to Damo, Bhabhutiand Ram Charan. PW6- (Janak Singh) has stated that when hereached at the place of occurrence, Rameshwar had alreadysustained injuries. He has stated that he was the first to reach the place of occurrence. This witness has also denied seeing anyinjury to the accused side. Thus, PW6 was not the eye-witnessand he has not seen anyone causing injuries. If PW6 is to bebelieved then since he was the first person to reach at the place ofoccurrence, no one had witnessed the incident. PW7-(BhagwanSingh) has also deposed that Ram Charan gave a blow of ‘Farsa’on the head of Rameshwar. This witness has not stated anythingwith regard to the injury caused by Maharaj Singh. He has clearlystated that he had only seen Ram Charan causing injury toRameshwar. As to who caused second injury, he is unaware. Thiswitness has admitted that the dispute took place because of somefarm land. He has also denied seeing injuries caused to theaccused Ram Charan. PW12-(Dr. Mahendra Kumar Jain) is theDoctor, who has examined all the injured including the accusedparty. He has also stated the time when he examined the injured.The time is almost the same that is the accused and thecomplainant side were examined by the Doctor between 11:20 AMto 12:20 PM. He has also deposed in case of deceased-Rameshwar that injury No.1 was the cause of death and thatinjury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to causedeath. This witness has not stated anything with regard to theinjury No.2. Injury No.1 was caused by Ram Charan who hasexpired.

8. We are of the considered view that the case would notfall within the purview of Section 149 IPC for the very reason thatpresent is a case where charge-sheet has been filed against thecomplainant side for offence under Section 307 read with Section

149 and 452 IPC. The witnesses have pleaded ignorance withregard to the injuries caused to the accused side even when theywere examined at the same time by same Doctor, Dr. MahendraKumar Jain (PW12). Present is a case of over implication. Charge-sheet was filed against fourteen persons and the Trial Court hasacquitted nine of the co-accused. No appeal was preferred by thecomplainant or the State against the acquittal. Thus, the story ofthe prosecution that fourteen persons attacked the complainantside is not proved. As per accused side, the dispute took placewith regard to a farm land which was mortgaged with thecomplainant side and when the accused went to pay the moneyand get the property released, the dispute arose as thecomplainant side wanted to keep the property.

9. From perusal of the entire evidence, it reveals thatmaterial facts have been concealed by the prosecution. They havenot disclosed the reason as to why the accused side receivedinjuries. If Janak (PW6) is to be believed, he was first to reach theplace of occurrence and when he reached, the incident hadalready taken place. Thus, it cannot be said that the presentappellants who are stated to be present at the place of occurrencehad prior meeting of mind with regard to causing death ofRameshwar.

10. Apex Court in Nand Lal & Ors. Vs. State ofChhattisgarh (Supra) has held that omission on the part of theprosecution to explain the injuries on the accused would assumegreater importance where the evidence consists of interested andinimical witnesses or where the defence gives the version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. The ApexCourt further observed that when there is delay in registering theFIR, the suspicion with regard to over implication of number ofpersons, particularly when the case involves a fight between twogroups, is possible and the FIR looses its credence, if it is lodgedafter an inordinate delay. Present is a case where FIR was lodgedafter 60 hours of the incident.

11. We are of the considered view that prosecution hasfailed to establish the offence against the present appellants.Since the prosecution has failed to establish that fourteen personsarmed with ‘Farsa’ and ‘Lathis’ attacked the deceased and thecomplainant side, as nine have been acquitted by the Trial Court,the witnesses are not reliable as they have concealed the fact ofinjuries caused to the accused side. The witnesses reached theplace of occurrence after the incident took place and thus, had notwitnessed the accused causing injuries to the deceased as Janak(PW6) was the first to reach the place of occurrence and accordingto his statement when he reached, the occurrence had alreadytaken place. The other witnesses have not assigned injury toMaharaj Singh. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish thatthe present accused appellants have caused any injury to thedeceased and that they had prior meeting of mind beforecommission of the said offence.12.Consequently, we do not find any case made outagainst the present appellants. The incident might have takenplace at the residence of the accused side as charge-sheet wasfiled against the complainant side for offence under Section 307

read with Section 149 and 452 IPC. The accused appellants arethus, entitled to acquittal.

13. Consequently, the present criminal appeal filed by theaccused appellants is allowed. The judgment of conviction andorder of sentence are set aside. The accused-appellants areacquitted of the charges.

14. Appellants- Ram Charan and Ramjilal have expired.Remaining accused-appellants Maharaj Singh, Damo and Rameshare on bail. The bail bonds earlier submitted by them are herebycancelled.

15. Appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in thesum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount inaccordance with Section 481 of BNSS before the Registrar(Judicial) within two weeks from today to the effect that in theevent of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment oron grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shallappear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will beeffective for a period of six months.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

chandan/