Skip to content


State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Goparam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 243 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)594
AppellantState of Rajasthan and anr.
RespondentGoparam and ors.
Excerpt:
.....no blood was found at the place where the deceased sangram is said to have been surrounded by the accused persons. we are of the opinion that the incident did not take place in the manner as stated by the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and that it appears that the incident took place all of sudden on account of exchange of hot words between the accused persons and the deceased lalchand and during the course of the said altercation a fight took place in which both the sides sustained injuries. in our opinion, therefore, the sessions judgs was right in holding that this was a case of free fight.;(b) penal code - sections 34 &149--vicarious liability--all accused--armed--more injuries would been caused if accused had common intention--held, accused are liable for their..........the deceased with a lathi while the deceased was running away and that after sustaining the said injury deceased lalchand fell down on the ground and became unconscious. according to the sessions judge the injury that was caused by sangram was injury no. 1 read with injury no. 6 as mentioned by dr. prakash dayal in the post mortem report ex. p. 17 injury no. 1 was a lacerated wound 5.5 cm. x 1cm at its maximum and .5 cm. at its minimum anteriorly in the right parietal region of scalp. it was skin deep and was situated 12 cm. from right ear. injury no. 6 was extra dural haematoma about 5 cm. x 3 cm. in the right parietal region, it was clotted. according to dr. prakash dayal injury no. 1 was the external injury and injury no 6 was the internal injury underneath injury no. 1.taking into.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agarwal, J.

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Merta, dated March 30, 1974 in Sessions Case No. 28/ 37. In the aforesaid Sessions case five persons, namely, Gopa Ram and his four sons Ramdeen, Sangram, Dayalram and Udaram were prosecuted. All the accused were charged with offence under Section 148 CPC. Accused Sang Ram was charged with the offence under Section 302 IPC and the other accused persons were charged with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Dayalram was charged with the offence under Section 324 IPC and the other accused persons were charged under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Ramdeen and Budharam were charged with the offence under Section 323 IPC, but they along with other accused persons were also charged under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted accused Goparam of all the charges. He convicted accused Sangram of the offence under Section 304, Part II IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs 501/-and default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Dayal Ram was convicted of the offence under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 101/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment of or further period of two months. Accused Budha Ram was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 101/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Accused Ramdeen has been convicted of the offence under Section 323 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 51/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 1974 has been filed by accused Sangram, Dayalram, Budharam and Ramdeen against their conviction and sentence for the offences referred to above. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 19/4 has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 and 302/149 respectively. The said appeal has been filed after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378(iii) Cr. PC. In the petition for leave to appeal which was filed by the State all the five accused persons were impleaded as Respondents and leave to appeal was granted against all the five accused persons. But since the memorandum of appeal was not filed by the State within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the memorandum of appeal, the appeal of the Srate was dismissed by the order of this Court dated January, 27, 1975 on the ground of limitation. Against the said order of this Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation the State filed on appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court and the said appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated March 4, 1977 whereby the order of this Court dated January 27,1975 was set aside and the matter was remanded to this Court with the direction to restore to file D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1974 and to re hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law. From the order of the Supreme Court dated March 4, 1977 it appears that Goparam accused was not a party to the appeal that was filed by the State before the Supreme Court and the appeal that was filed by the State before the Supreme Court related to accused Ramdeen, Sangram, Dayalram and Budharam only. This would show that the order of this Court dated January 27, 1975 has become final as against accused Goparam and D,B Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1974 filed by the State has to be treated as confined to the other four accused persons, namely, Ramdeen; Sangram, Dayalram and Budharam.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that famine relief work involving construction of road between Kuchera and Kasnau Villages was going and in connection with the said famine relief work one Pushpendra was the mistry in one of the gangs and Accused Sangram was working as mate in that gang. As there were compaints about certain irregularities in the matter of entering of fictitious names of labourers in the muster rolls Pushpendra was replaced by Lalchand deceased as mistry of the said gang. Lalchand deceased was very strict in the matter of entering the nanus of laboures in the muster rolls and he refused to enter the names of fictitious psrsons at the instance of accused Sangram and this led to a heated exchange between deceased Lalchand and accused Sangram and their relations were strained. The case of the prosecution is further that on June 6,1973 deceased Lalchand along with Madanlal (PW 12) and Bhanwaru (PW 5) was returning from the work in the evening and when they reached Village Kuchera Madanlal went towards his house while the deceased and Bhanwaru were going together. When they came to the Chowk in front of the Panchayat Pol they found all five accused persons standing there armed with Lathis. Accused Sangram told the deceased that if he wanted to work as mistry in the gang he shall have to enter fictitious names as and when suggested by him and the accused refused to do so. Thereupon the accused persons started assaulting the deceased. On the alarm raised by deceased Lalchand his father Ramkaran (PW 1) ran from his house to rescue his son and he was also assaulted. Madanlal (PW 12) also heard the noise and he also came to the spot and tried to intervene and he was also assaulted. Badri Ram (PW 13) brother of Ramkaran, also came to the scene of the occurrence and tried to intervenes and he was also he assaulted. The case of the prosecution is further that while the assault was going on deceased Lalchand ran towards' Sitaram' temple and while he was so running accused Sangram gave a blow with a Lathi from behind which hit the deceased on this head and as a result deceased Lalchand fell down and bacame unconscious. Subhkaran (PW 2) who also happens to be the brother of Ramkaran (PW 1) also arrived at the spot and found all the accused persons standing and he told the accused party that they had killed Lalchand and thereupon accused persons ran away from the spot. Since the condition of Lalchand was serious he was first taken to the hospital at Kuchera. The Doctor of Kuchera advised that he should be taken to Nagaur Hospital and thereupon Lalchand was taken to the hospital Nagaur where the injuries on the person of Lalchand were examined by Dr. Parasram Joshi (P W 8) Medical Jurist Government Hospital, Nagaur on June 6, 1978 at 9.30 p.m. vide injury report Ex. P. 13. On June 6, 1973 Dr. Joshi also examined the injuries found on Ramkaran (PW 1) vide injury report Ex. P. 12, Madanlal (PW 12) vide injury report Ex. P. 13 and Badrilal (PW 13) vide injury report Ex.P. 11. As the condition of Lalchand was very serious Dr. Joshi advised that he should be taken to Jodhpur and thereupon he was taken to Jodhpur. Before taking Lalchand to the hospital at Jodhpur Ramkaran prepared a written report (Ex P. 1) and handed in over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who had arrived at Government Hospital, Nagaur. On the said report the Deputy Superintendent of Police made an endorsement about his having received the same on June 6, 1973 at 11 p.m. and he directed that a case be registered and investigation be commenced on the basis of the said report. The said report was taken by Subhkaran (PW 2) to Police Station Mundwa and on the basis of the said report FIR was recorded at Police Station Mundwa on June 7, 1973 at 2 a.m. by Motikrishan Vyas (PW 15) SHO PS Mundwa. A case under Sections 307, 325, 324 and 147 IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. Lalchand while he was undergoing treatment at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, expired on June 8, 1973, The autopsy on the dead body of Lalchand was conducted by Dr. Prakash Dayal (PW 14) Medical Jurist and Head of Department of Forensic Medicine Mahatma Gandhi Hospital and Medical College Jodhpur on June 8, 1973 at 8.30 a.m and he prepared the post mortem report Ex. P. 17. Spot investigation was conducted by Shri Moti Krishan Vyas (PW 15). He prepared the Memo of site inspection (Ex. P. 1) and the Fard Surat Haal Lash (Ex. P. 2). He seized the clothes of the deceased vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 5), and the clothes of Ramkaran vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 4) A Kulhari said to have been seized from the person of accused Dayalram during the course of occurrence was produced by Ramkaran (PW 1) and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P. 6). Accused Goparam was arrested on June 12, 1973 and the other four accused were arrested on June 13, 1973. At the time of their arrest there were certain injuries on the person of Sangram, Dayalram and Budharam accused and the said injuries were examined by Dr. Parasram Joshi on June 15, 1973. After examining the said injuries Dr. Joshi prepared the injury reports Exs. D. 6, D. 7 and D. 8 with regard to the injuries found on the person of accused Budharam, Dayalram and Sangram respectively. After completing the investigation the police filed a cherge sheet against the accused persons and after inquiry they were committed for trial to the court of Session and charges, referred to above were read over to them by the Sessions Judge, Merta. The laccused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses out of whom Ramkaran PW 1, Bhanwaru PW 5, Madanlal PW 12 and Badri PW 13 have been examined as the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Subhkaran PW 2 arrived at the scene of the occurrence soon after the occurrence was over but found the accused persons standing there. Madan Lal PW 12 and Smt. Fatma PW 10 have been examined to prove the strained relations between the deceased Lalchand & accused Sangram on account of the refusal on the part of deceased Lalchand to enter fictitious names in the muster roll as per the demand of accused Sangram. Dr. Paras Ram Joshi PW 8, is the Medical Officer who examined the injuries of the deceased Lalchand and Ramkaran (PW 1) Madan Lal (PW 12) and Badri (PW 13) as well as the injuries of accused Sangram, Dayalram and Budharam and has proved who the said injury reports that were prepared by him, after examining the said injuries Dr. Prakash Dayal is the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Lalchand and has proved the post mortem report Ex. P. 17.

4. Accused Goparam and Ramdeen in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr. PC (Old), denied their presence at the spot at the time of the incident. Accused Sangram pleaded that on the date of the occurrence in the evening he was returning from the famine work along with the other labourers and when he came near the village Ramkaran, Badri, Lalchand deceased and Shanker came to beat him and that on seeing them he changed his route and went by the Roopthal way and after he entered the village the aforesaid persons surrounded him and attacked him and inflicted injuries on his person. He has also stated that on hearing his alarm accused Budharam and Dayalram arrived there and they were also assaulted. He has also stated that in the night he went to the hospital at Kuchera but the doctor did not examine his injuries on the ground that he had been transferred and he went to the hospital at Mundwa but no doctor was available there and, thereupon he advised him to get his injuries examined by the other doctor and thereupon he went to Merta and got his injuries examined at the hospital at Merta. Accused Budharam and Dayalram have also pleaded that they were assaulted by the complainant party and that they had got their injuries examined at Merta hospital. In support of their aforesaid defence the accused persons examined three witnesses. Dr. Tulsaram (DW 1) was the Medical Officer at Government Dispensary, Merta city on June 7, 1973 and had examined the injuries of Budhararn, Dayalram and Sangram and has proved the injury report Ex. D. 1 3 with regard to the injuries found on the person of accused Budharam, the injury report Ex. D. 14 with regard to the injuries found on the person of accused Dayalram and injury report Ex. D. 15 with regard to the injuries found on the person of accused Sangram. He has also proved the report Ex. D. 16 with regard to the X-ray examination of the injuries found on the right band of Sangram. Bachansingh (DW 2) and Sattar (DW 3) have been examined to narrate the manner in which the injuries were received by the accused persons at the hands of the complainant.

5. The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the relations of deceased Lalchand & accused Sangram were strained on account of the refusal on the part of deceased Lalchand to agree to the demand of accused Sangram to enter fictitious names in the muster roll. As regards the actual incident of assault which took place on the evening of June 6, 1973 the Sessions Judge was of the view that both the parties had tried to supress facts as to what was the immediate cause of the quarrel in which both the parties received injuries. According to the Sessions Judge when Sangram, Madanlal, Bhanwaru, Lalchand, Budharam, Ramdeen and Dayalram were returning after the working-house a wordy duel took place between accused Sangram and deceased Lalchand in respect of fictitious names of the labourers which Sangram wanted to be entered in the muster roll and which deceased Lalchand was not prepared to do and when they came near the Panchayati Nohra the talk became more heated and then blows were exchanged from both the sides. The Sessions Judge also found that since houses of Ramkaran and Badri were close to the place of occurrence they also joined Lalchand. According to the Sessions Judge it was a clear case of free fight and it could not be said that the accused persons had any common intention to murder Lalchand because if there had been so, there was no reason why they did not finish Lalchand on the very spot where they are alleged to have surrounded him and to have assaulted him with Lathies. According to the Sessions Judge the accused persons could only be held liable for their individual acts and no liability can be imposed on them by application of Section 149 or Section 34 IPC. After taking into consideration the evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, Ramkaran (PW 1), Bhanwaru (PW 5), Madanlal (PW 12) and Badri (PW 13), the Sessions Judge held that the participation of accused Goparam in the incident had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Sessions Judge, however, held that accused Sangram was responsible for causing the head injury on the person of deceased Lalchand which resulted in the fall of Lalchand and that the said injury, in all probability proved fatal He further held that accused Budharam had caused the injury with a Lathi on the right thigh of Madanlal and on the head of Badri. Accused Dayalram had caused art injury with an axe on the right chin of Ramkaran and accused Ramdeen had caused injury with a Lathi on the bead of Ramkaran. In view of the findings aforesaid the Sessions Judge convicted accused Sangram for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part, II IPC accused Dayalram of the offence under Section 324 IPC and accused Budharam and Ramdeen of the offence under Section 323 IPC and awarded the sentence referred to above for the said offences. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Sessions Judge the accused persons as well as the State have filed these appeals.

6. We have heard Shri Niyajuddin the learned Public Prosecutor for State who has assisted by Shri M.M. Singhvi the learned Counsel for the complainants, and Shri Doongarsingh the learned Counsel for the accused persons.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge that this was a case of free fight and that the accused persons did not share the common object or the common intention to kill deceased Lalchand. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor was that taking into consideration the back ground of the incident, namely, the strained relations between deceased Lalchand & accused Sangram on account of the refusal on the part of deceased Lalchand to agree to the demand of accused Sangram to enter fictitious names in the muster roll it must be held that the accused persons had assaulted deceased Lalchand with the intention of causing his death. In support of his aforesaid submission the learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely, Ramkaran (PW 1), Bhanwaru (PW 5), Madanlal (PW 12) and Badri (PW 13) and has submitted that from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it is clearly established that all the five accused persons had surrounded the deceased and had assaulted him. The learned Public Prosecutor has also invited our attention to the medical evidence with regard to the injuries that were found on the person of deceased Lalchand. After having considered the aforesaid submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and after carefully perusing the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence with regard to the injuries found on the person of the deceased Lalchand we are inclined to agree with the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge that this was a case of free fight and it cannot be said that the accused persons shared the common object or had the common intention to cause the death of Lal Chand. From the medical evidence it appears that Dr. Joshi had found the following injuries on the person of Lalchand when he examined him at the hospital at Nagaur on June 6, 1973 vide injury report Ex. P. 10:

(1) Lacerated wound with torn out edges 2 1/'x 1/2' x periosetum deep on right parietal region obliquely anteroposterior

(2) Depressed fracture of right parietal bone below injury No. 1.

According to Dr. Joshi both the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by one blow. The evidence of Dr. Prakash Dayal (PW 14) who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Lalchand, shows that the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

(1) Lacerated wound 5.5 cm. x 1 cm at its maximum and 0.5 cm. at its minimum anteriorly in the right parietal region of scalp. Jt was skin deep and was situated 12 cm. from the right ear

(2) Haemetoma about 5cm. x 0.5 cm. on the 3.5 cm. in the left parietal region of scalp

(3) Abrasion .cm. x 0.5 cm, on the anterior aspect of left foot, at its middle

(4) Fissured fracture left parietal bone just near the frontoparietal suture

(5) Extra dural haematoma about 8 cm. x 6cm, on the left frontoparietal region; it was clotted

(6) Extra-durel haemetome about 5 cm. x 3cm. in the right parietal region; it was clotted.

Dr. Prakash. Dayal has, expressed the view that out of the six injuries found on the person of the deceased injury No. 6 was the internal injury of external injury No. 1 and injuries Nos. 4 and 5 were the internal injuries of external injury No. 2 and that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were two independent injuries.

8. The evidence of the eye witnesses shows that although all of them have stated that while Lalchand was running accused Sangram ran after him and gave a blow with a Lathi which hit him on the head and after receiving the said blow Lalchand fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The witnesses have also deposed that prior to that the deceased had been surrounded by the accused persons. But on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses it cannot be said as to whether any of the accused persons and if so, who, had inflicted any injury on the head of the deceased at that time. No blood was however found at the place where deceased Lalchand is said to been surrounded by the deceased accused persons. From the evidence of Dr. Tulsaram (DW 1), who has proved the injury reports Ex. D 13, D. 14 and D. 15 relating to the injuries found by him on the person of the accused Budharam, Dayalram and Sangram respectively and who has also proved the X-ray report Ex. D. 16. It appears that accused Budharam had two injuries on his head, accused Dayal Ram had an incised wound on his head and accused Sangram had a bruise on the mustoid region of the head and also a bruise on the dorsum of palm of the right hand which had resulted in the communated fracture of his phalangial bone of right major finger near its base. The aforesaid accused persons were medically examined on June 7, 1973 from 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M. and according to the injuries reports the duration of the injuries was within 24 hrs. In view of the nature of the injuries and the places of the body where the injuries were found. It cannot be said that the said injuries were only inflicted and it appears more likely that they were received during the course of the incident. The eye witnesses have how ever offered no explanation for these injuries. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the injuries that were found on the person of accused Budha Ram, Dayalram and Sangram & the failure on the part of the prosecution to explain as to how these injuries were sustained and the fact that no blood was found at the place where the deceased Lalchand is said to have been surrounded by the accused persons. We are of the opinion that the incident did not take place in the manner as stated by the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution and that it appears that the incident took place all of sudden on account of exchange of hot words between the accused persons and the deceased Lalchand and during the course of the said altercation a fight took place in which both sides sustained injuries. In our opinion, therefore, the Sessions Judge was right in holding that this was a case of free fight.

9. We are also unable to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that at the time of the assault on deceased Lalchand, the accused persons shared the common object or the common intention to murder Lalchand because the injuries that were found on the person of deceased Lalchand do not lend support to this case. As noticed earlier the medical evidence shows that the deceased had two external injuries on his person and according to Dr. Joshi both the injuries were caused by one blow whereas according Dr. Dayal they were two independent injuries. If the accused persons bad the intention causing the death of Lalchand, the injuries on the person of the deceased would have been much more in number than were actually found in as much as the case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons were armed. It must, therefore, be held that the accused persons can only be held responsible for their individual acts and liability cannot be fastened on them by applying the provisions of Section 149 or Section 34 IPC.

10. When we take up the case of the individual accused persons we find that the Sessions Judge has held that accused Dayalram had caused an injury with an axe on the right chin of Ramkaran (PW 1), accused Budharam had caused an injury with a Lathi on the right thigh of Madan (PW 12) and on the head of Badri (PW 13) and accused Ratndeen had caused an injury on the head of Ramkaran (PW 1) with a Lathi. Shri Doongarsingh has not been able to point out any infirmity in the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We are of the opinion that on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution the aforesaid accused persons have been rightly held responsible for causing the aforesaid injuries. The conviction of accused Dayalram for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accused Budharam and Ramdeen for the offence under Section 323 IPC must, therefore, be upheld and the sentence that has been imposed on the aforsaid accused persons for their offences does not also call for any interference.

11. As regards accused Sangram the Sessions Judge has found on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses that he had inflicted an injury on the Head of the deceased with a Lathi while the deceased was running away and that after sustaining the said injury deceased Lalchand fell down on the ground and became unconscious. According to the Sessions Judge the injury that was caused by Sangram was injury No. 1 read with injury No. 6 as mentioned by Dr. Prakash Dayal in the post mortem report Ex. P. 17 Injury No. 1 was a lacerated wound 5.5 cm. x 1cm at its maximum and .5 cm. at its minimum anteriorly in the right parietal region of scalp. It was skin deep and was situated 12 cm. from right ear. Injury No. 6 was extra dural haematoma about 5 cm. x 3 cm. in the right parietal region, it was clotted. According to Dr. Prakash Dayal injury No. 1 was the external injury and injury No 6 was the internal injury underneath injury No. 1.Taking into consideration weapon by which the injuries were caused, viz, Lathi the nature of the aforesaid injuries it cannot be said that accused Sangram, when he caused the said injuries, had the intention to cause the death of Lalchand or had the intention to cause an injury that was likely to cause his death so was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury which was inflicted by accused Sangram on of deceased Lalchand was however, such as could result in his death and accused Sagram be attributed to the knowledge that the injury that would be inflicted be giving a blow on the head of the deceased Lalchand with a Lathi could be such as was likely to cause his death. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that accused Sangram has beep rightly found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II IPC. We are unable to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that in the facts and circumstances of the case offence under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I IPC is made but against accused Sangram. We would, therefore, uphold the convicticn of accused Sangram for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

12. In the matter of sentence we find that accused Sangram was arrested on June 3, 1983 and he ramained in custody during the course of investigation inquiry and trial and that even after his conviction by the Sessions Judge he remained in custofdy till October 28, 1976 when he was released in pursuance of the order of this Court dated October 22, 1976 where by the sentence of accused Sangram was suspended and he was ordered to be released on bail. He has thus remained in custody for a period of 3 years and 4 1/2 months. Taking in to consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the substanive sentence imposed on accused Sangram for the offence under Section 304, Part II IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already under gone by him. We are however inclined to enhance the sentence of fine imposed on accused Sangram for the said offence from Rs. 501/- to Rs.1000/- and that in default of payment of the fine he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. In so far as accused Dayalram, Budharam and Ramdeen are concerned we find that they have already undergone imprisonment for a period in excess of the substantive sentence as well as the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine that has been imposed upon them.

13. In the result D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1974 filed by the State is dismissed. D.B. Criminal appeal No. 243 of 1974 filed by the accused persons is partly allowed. The conviction of accused Sangram for the offence under Section 304. Part If IPC is maintained but the substantive sentence imposed upon him for the said offence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 501/- to Rs. 1003/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The conviction and sentence imposed on accused Dayalram for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed upon accused Budharam and Ramdeen for the offence under Section 323 IPC are maintained. Accused Sangram is given two months' time to deposit the fine that has been imposed upon him. Accused Dayalram, Budharam and Ramdeen are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //