Skip to content


Ram Dayal and 7 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN649
AppellantRam Dayal and 7 ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
penal code - section 148--ingredients of--complainant party returning to village--no dispute beaten by accused--held, neither unlawful assembly nor common object is proved and conviction under section 148 cannot be sustained.;for convicting a person under section 148 ipc the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons had formed unlawful assembly and the common object of that assembly was to commit some mischief or offence, and the common object of the persons was one of those points which have been mentioned in section 141 ipc. the members of the complainant party came to village ramthala and when they were returning to their village, the dispute took place and they were beaten by the accused persons. this statement does not prove that the accused persons had a common object or.....gopal klshan sharma, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19-12-1984 passed by the sessions judge, tonk in sessions case no. 13/1984 whereby he convicted all the accused appellants for the offence under section 148, ipc and sentenced each of them to 3 years r.i. he also convicted all the appellants under section 302, ipc or in the alternative under section 302/149, ipc and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of rs. 200/- in default whereof to undergo further 2 months r.i. he also convicted all the accused appellants for attempt to murder mangilal, ramlal ramnath, rameshwar, ramchand and sukha, and convicted them for the offence under section 307, ipc or in the alternative under section 307/149, ipc, and sentenced each of the appellants to 10.....
Judgment:

Gopal Klshan Sharma, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19-12-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 13/1984 whereby he convicted all the accused appellants for the offence Under Section 148, IPC and sentenced each of them to 3 years R.I. He also convicted all the appellants Under Section 302, IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/149, IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default whereof to undergo further 2 months R.I. He also convicted all the accused appellants for attempt to murder Mangilal, Ramlal Ramnath, Rameshwar, Ramchand and Sukha, and convicted them for the offence Under Section 307, IPC or in the alternative Under Section 307/149, IPC, and sentenced each of the appellants to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment whereof to further undergo one month's R.I.

2. We would like to mention that it is most unfortunate that the learned Sessions Judge could not arrive at a definite conclusion whether the appellants are guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC or are guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Similarly, he could not come to a definite finding whether the appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 307 or 307/149, IPC. No doubt charges were framed in the alternative but after recording the evidence the learned Sessions Judge should have come to a definite finding as to what offence has been committed by the accused appellants. Such sort of finding by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that he could not apply his mind and was unable to arrive at a conclusion as to which offence has been committed by the accused persons.

3. On 21-9-1983 Ranchumal (PW 1) who was posted as ASI at P.S. Deoli received a telephonic message at 4 p.m. that some dispute had taken place regarding some agricultural land at village Ramthala. He after recording this information in the Roznamcha along with Head Constable Chitarmal and constable Rameshwarlal and some other constables left the police Station for Ramthala in a Matador vehicle. When he came to the Choraha of Ramthala, he was informed that some of the injured persons had gone to Sangrampura. At this the ASI proceeded to Sangarmpura and found Ramnath, Ranglal, Ramlal and one more injured lying there. He brought them for treatment to Deoli hospital. When he was going to the hospital. Ramlal told him that three injured persons were lying near Ramthala village. He then reached there and found that three persons were lying there injured. Two of them were conscious, while one was unconscious. He brought those three persons also in the same Matador vehicle and came to Deoli hospital. The doctor was on leave and as such the compounder attended them and told that one of those persons, namely, Jagannath, had expired. From Deoli hospital, he telephoned to the police station and the SHO and ASI, Ram Singh came to Deoli hospital.

4. The injured Ramlal son of Kalyan gave his statement and Parcha Bayan was recorded in which he narrated that on 19-9-1983 Ramdayal and others gave beating to their co-cultivator Ratiram son of Dhula resident of Ramthala. In order to find out the condition of Ratiram, he, Sukha, Jagannath, Mangilal, Rammnath, Ramchand, Rameshwar and Ramlal residents of Sangrampura came to Ramthala on 21-9-1983 and went to the house of Ratiram. In the night they remained at the house of Ratiram. In the morning they started from his house towards their village on foot. At about 10.11 A.M. when they were in the Khal of Ramthala, Ramdayal, Bheru, Jagdish, Onkar, Jagannath, Deviya, Tulsya, Mahadev, and Ratnya along with three other persons armed with lathis and pharsis came there and started beating them. They were uttering words, 'kill them today'. Ramdayal, Jagdish, Deviya and Tulsya were armed with pharsis, while others were having lathis. When they were beating them, the villagers who were standing there did not secure them and were seeing the incident. After beating them, all those persons ran away. He further narrated that Ramdayal inflicted blows on both of his hands by pharsi. Sukha was beaten by Ramdayal, Bheru, Deviya and Tulsya. He was under so much fear that he could not narrate further as to which accused beat him. According to him, there was a dispute between them and the accused persons regarding land and the cases are pending in the revenue courts. In the revenue court at Tonk, they were successful in the suit, and the appeal is pending against that judgment at Ajmer. On account of this enmity, the accused persons beat them.

5. On this Parcha Bayan, the police registered a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302, IPC and started investigation.

6. On 22-9-83 the S.H.O. inspected the site, prepared memo and seized blood stained and plain earth from the spot. After investigation, the accused were arrested and the police submitted a challan against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, who committed them for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk.

7. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons Under Sections 148, 302 and 302/149, and 307 and 307/149, IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses to establish its case and in defence the accused persons examined four witnesses.

9. After hearing both the sides and considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty of the offence Under Section 148, IPC, 302, IPC and in the alternative Under Section 302/149, IPC. He also found all the accused persons guilty of offence under Section 307, or in the alternative under Section 307/149 IPC, and sentenced each of them as mentioned above.

10. The learned P.P. has argued that the accused persons gave beating to Jagannath and other persons and on account of this beating Jagannath succumbed to his injuries and died. This aspect has been proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as well as by the statement of Dr. B.D. Sharma (PW 15) Dr. Sharma conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jagannath on 22-9-83. He found 9 injuries on the body of Jagannath and during the post mortem he found that there was a fracture of the left parietal bone and also a fracture of radius and ulna of the right hand, as also a fracture of left febula. In the opinion of Dr. Sharma, Jagannath died on account of head injury and fractures. The head injury was self sufficient to cause the death. The other fractures along with head injury were sufficient to cause death of Jagannath. Thus, it is clear that Jagannath died on account of these injuries. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel of the appellant. So Jagannath died not of a natural death but his death was homicidal in nature.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that all the accused appellants have been found guilty under Section 148, IPC, and each of them was sentenced to 3 years R.I. It was argued that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the accused appellants had formed an unlawful assembly. He has also erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants had a common object and they acted and used criminal force. Being a member of the unlawful assembly each of the appellants was held guilty for the offence under Section 148, IPC and this conclusion is not correct. In reply to this argument, the learned P.P. argued that the accused appellants had formed unlawful assembly. Their common object was to take revenue on account of the dispute regarding agricultural land. Revenue cases were pending between both the parties and the complainant party came to village Ramthala a day earlier and stayed with Ratiram (PW4) as they were informed that Ratiram the co-cultivator was beaten by the accused persons. All the members of the complainant party belong to village Sangrampura and they had come to know the welfare of Ratiram. In the revenue court the complainant party was successful and an appeal is pending in the Court at Ajmer. On account of the defeat in the revenue court the accused persons were aggrieved and they, wanted to take revenge. With this intention and the common object in the morning when the members of the complainant party were returning to their village they were attacked by the accused persons and were given beating. So, the accused persons had the common object and in furtherance of the common object they had formed an unlawful assembly. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 148 IPC.

12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this argument advanced on behalf of both the sides. For convicting a person under Section 148, IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and the common object of that assembly was to commit some mischief or offence and the common object of the persons was one of those points which have been mentioned in Section 141 IPC. There is no evidence on record to prove the common object of the appellants. It might be that revenue cases were pending between both the parties. The accused person had lost in the lower court and an appeal is being at Ajmer, but it does not prove that the accused persons had any common object of using criminal force against the complainant party. From the statement of Rati Ram (PW 14) it reveals that when the members of the complainant party reached near the Khal a quarrel took place between both the parties. Rati Ram (PW 14) is the resident of Ramthala, who is cultivating the land of the complainant party as a co-cultivator. The accused persons tried to destroy the crop of grouud nut to which Ratiram objected, and the accused persons quarrelled with him. The complainant party came to Ramthala to find out about this dispute. He narrated the fact to them and told them that the accused persons tried to destroy the crop. Ratiram (PW 14) requested the members of the complainant party to return to their village Sangrampura and they told they will return in the morning. When the members of the complainant party reached the Khal, Ramdayal and others went there armed with lathis and pharsis and there a quarrel took place. In that quarrel both the sides inficted injuries to each other. So, from the statement of this witness it is clear that the members of the complainant party came to village Ramthala and when they were returning to their village, the dispute took place and they were beaten by the accused persons. This statement does not prove that the accused persons had a common object or had formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object as a member of that unlawful assembly they beat the complainant party. Excepting the statement of Ratiram (PW 14) there is no iota of evidence to prove that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and they had any one of the common objects as mentioned in Section 141 IPC. Merely because a dispute arose or revenue cases are pending between the parties, and the complainant party came to village Ramthala a day early, it does not prove that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly and had a common object, and in furtherance of that common object they beat the members of the complainant party. No doubt, revenue cases are pending, and a few days before the date of occurrence Ratiram, who was cultivating the land of the complainant party, was beaten by the accused persons, and the accused persons tried to destroy the crop, does not mean that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly to beat the members of the complainant party who had come to Ramthala to find out the welfare of Ratiram. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that any unlawful assembly was formed by the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has incorrectly appreciated the evidence and has erred in holding that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and were responsible for the acts done by each other. Hence, the conviction of the appellants for the offence Under Section 148 IPC is not correct and cannot be sustained. All the appellants are, therefore, acquitted of the offence under Section ion148 IPC.

13. All the accused appellants have been found guilty of the offence Under Section 307 IPC and 307/149 IPC for attempt to murder Mangilal, Ramlal, Ramnath, Rameshwar, Ramchand and Sukha. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that no case is made out against the accused persons under Section 307, IPC. As the accused persons had not formed an unlawful assembly, they cannot be convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC. It was also argued that the injuries to these persons were simple injuries and it cannot be said that their injuries were so serious as to endanger the life of the injured persons. Hence no case is established Under Section 307, IPC.

14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this aspect as to whether a case Under Section 307, IPC is made out againg the accused persons or not. We have held above that the accused persons had not formed an unlawful assembly and they have not been found guilty Under Section 148, IPC. So, none of the appellants can be found guilty of the offence Under Section 307, IPC with the aid of Section 149, IPC. Now, the individual act of the accused is to be seen.

15. Who ever does an act with: such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act the death is caused, he would be guility of murder, and shall be punished for the offence under Section 307, IPC. Keeping this principle in view, let us examine whether the accused persons had done such an act with such intention or knowledge.

16. Dr. B.D. Sharma (PW 15) had examined the injuries of all the injured persons. Mangilal son of Kalayan had 8 injuries, out of which injuries 1 to 4 were caused by some sharp edged weapon, while injuries 5 to 8 were inflicted by blunt object. All these injuries were simple in nature. Ramlal son of Kalyan had five injuries. Injuries 1 to 3 were X-rayed and injuries 4 and 5 were caused by blunt object, which were simple in nature. On receipt of x-ray report, it was found that the injuries 1 to 3 were also simple. Ramnath son of Kalyan had five injuries, out of which injury No. 1 was caused by sharp weapon while other injuries were caused by blunt object. All these injuries were simple in nature, Rameshwar son of Gagannath had 3 injuries, out of which injuries 1 and 2 were X-rayed and were found grievous. Injury No. 3 was simple caused by blunt object. These injuries were on left hand and right elbow. They were not inflicted on any vital part of the body, but only on hand. So, it cannot be said that thev were dangerous to life. These injuries were also caused by blunt object. Ramchand son of Sukha had 3 injuries, out of which injury No. 1 was a lacerated wound and was simple in nature. Injuries 2 and 3 were on left hand and right leg and were caused by blunt object They were got X-rayed and the X-ray report indicates that injury No. 2 was grievous while injury No. 3 was simple. Looking to the nature and the place of these injuries, it cannot be said that they were so grievous as to endanger the life of the injured. The grievous injury was not on the vital part of the body but was on the left hand finger and thumb. Sukha had four injuries; out of which injury No. 1 was on left arm, injury No. 2 on the left hand, injury No. 3 on right leg, and injury No. 4 was simple. Injuries 1 and 3 were X-rayed and were found grievous, while injury No. 2 was simple. These injuries were also caused by blunt object. The grievous injury was on the right leg, and it cannot be said that it was dangerous to life.

17. Thus, perusing the statement of Dr. B.D. Sharma and the injury reports of the injured persons, and the injuries received by them, we find that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body, but they were on hands or legs. The nature of the injuries indicates that though some of them were grievous, but it cannot be said that they were so serious as to endanger human life. Had the accused persons any intention or knowledge to cause such bodily injury as to cause death of the injured persons, then they could be held guilty for the offence Under Section 307, IPC. But it cannot be said so, because most of the injuries were simple and the grievous injuries were also not of such type as to endanger human life. The learned Sessions Judge could not, however, appreciate the ingredients of Section 307, IPC. Merely because the accused-appellants inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party, it cannot be inferred that the accused persons had any intention or knowledge that by their acts they were going to cause the death of the injured persons. Therefore, the case Under Section 307, IPC has not been made out by the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding the appellants guilty for the offence Under Section 307, IPC. Their conviction under this Section cannot be sustained, and they are not found guilty Under Section 307, IPC. They are, therefore, acquitted of the offence Under Section 307, IPC.

18. The learned Sessions Judge has further convicted the appellants of the offence Under Section 302, or in the alternative Under Section 302/149. IPC. As has been held above that the case Under Section 148, IPC is not made out against the appellants, and they have been acquitted of this charge, they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149, IPC for the offence Under Section 302, IPC. Now the individual act of the appellants is to be seen and it is to be judged as to who is responsible for the fatal injury caused to Jagannath which resulted in his death. For this purpose, we have perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW 2 Ramlal injured has stated that the accused persons armed with lathis and pharsis came to them and started beating. He has not stated as to who had given any blow to Jagannath deceased. So this witness is of no assistance. Gopal (PW 5) has stated that Ramdayal accused inflicted pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath. Jagdish accused gave pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath and Bheru gave pharsi blow on the eye of Jagannath. On account of these injuries Jagannath fell down. But in cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say as to who gave blows to whom. Ramnath (PW 6) another injured has stated that Ramdayal gave pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath, Jagdish accused gave pharsi blow on his eye and Bheru gave pharsi blow on his head. Mangilal (PW 7) another eye witness has not stated as to who had given blows to Jagannath. Rameshwar (PW 8) has stated that Bheru inflicted pharsi blow on the eye of Jagannath, and Jagdish and Ramdayal gave pharsi blows on his head. Ramchand (PW 9) has stated that Ramdayal inflicted pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath, Bheru gave another pharsi blow on head and Jagdish gave pharsi blow on the side of Jagannath. Sukha (PW 11) who is also an injured stated that he was beaten by Tulsya. He became unconscious and as such cannot say who beat other persons. In his police statement, he has stated that all the accused persons beat Jagannath, but in cross-examination he denied to have deposed as such. Ratiram (PW 14) has stated that when the complainant party was in the Khal, the accused persons armed with lathis and pharsis reached there and a dispute arose between both the parties. So this witness also does not say about the author of the injures inflicted to Jagannath. Thus, looking to the entire prosecution evidence, we find that every witness has stated that the accused Ramdayal had inflicted pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath. As regards the accused appellants Btheru and Jagdish there is contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. Some say that Bheru inflicted pharsi blow on the eye of Jagannath, while others say that he gave pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath. Similarly, there is the contradiction about Jagdish accused also. Jagannath deceased had 9 injuries; injury No. 1 incised wound on the right eye, injury No. 2 incised wound on the scalp, injury No. 3 incised wound 3/4'' below injury No. 2, on the scalp, injury No. 4 abrasion on the fore-head, injuyy No. 5 abrasion and injuries 6 to 9 swellings and abrasions were on shoulder, leg and hand etc. According to the medical report and the post-mortem examination, there was a fracture of the left parietal bone. There was also a fracture of left radius and ulna and of left febula. There was also a fracture of the right side of face. The death was on account of the injury on the head and brain. So, the main injury leading to the death of Jagannath was injury No. 2, which was on the head. No doubt other fractures also added to his death. Head injury was inflicted by Ramdayal accused as is clear from the entire prosecution evidence. Therefore, we agree to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ramdayal accused is the author of the head injury to Jagannath, which caused fracture of the perietal bone resulting in his death. As the evidence is not consistent and there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, we do not hold Bheru and Jagdish accused responsible for inflicting head injury to Jagannath which resulted in his death. So, only Ram Dayal accused is responsible for this fatal injury.

19. Now, the point to be seen is, whether Ramdayal accused can be convicted for the offence Under Section 302, IPC. Section 300, IPC defines murder. A culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing the death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knows to be likely to cause the death, or if the act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if while committing the act offender knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such as aforesaid.

20. The prosecution has to prove one of these ingredients of Section 300, IPC, as mentioned above, in order to hold guilty a person for the offence of murder. There is no evidence on record which proves that the accused Ramdayal had any intention of causing the death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death. The learned P.P. has argued that on account of enmity regarding some land the accused persons inflicted injuries with the intention of causing the death of Jagannath. We do not agree with this contention. Merely a dispute is pending between the parties, it does not indicate that Ramdayal had any intention to cause the death of Jagannath. Apart from this, Ratiram (PW 14) has stated that 2-3 days before this occurence, the accused persons had tried to destroy the crop which was cultivated in partnership of the complainant party by him. He was also beaten by the accused persons. He has also stated that in the Khal a dispute arose and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. Thus, it is clear that the accused persons had no intention to commit murder of any member of the complainant party. The ingredients of Section 300, IPC have not been established and as such it is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC. Exception 4 says that culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon sudden quarrel, and without the offenders having taken undue advantage and acting in a cruel or unusual manner. It is immaterial in such cases as to which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. There is no evidence on record which shows that the accused persons had planned to cause the death of Jagannath or any other person. There is no evidence of pre-meditation as well. It is also immaterial whether the accused persons started beating first or the complainant party started the beating first. The fact is that a sudden fight took place and that too without any pre-meditation and in that fight Ramdayal gave pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath. This caused incised wound on the head of Jagannath which ultimately resulted in the fracture of parital, and on account of that injury his death was caused. Thus, the case is completely covered under Exception 4 to Section IPC. So, the case under Section 302, IPC is not made out against Ramdayal or any other accused appellant. All the accused appellants have been found guilty for this offence Under Section 302, IPC or in the alternative Under Section 302/49 IPC. This finding is correct. There is no case against other appellants except Ramdayal Jagdish and Bheru that they inflicted any blow to Jagannath. The case against Jagdish and Bheru for causing head injury which is fatal too has not been establishment. The only case established for inflicting fatal injury to Jagannath is against Ramdayal. But, as we have mentioned above that this case is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, Ramdayal too cannot be convicted for the offence Under Section 302, IPC. From all the circumstances and the entire evidence on record, we find that the accused Ramdayal is guilty of the offence Under Section 304(II), IPC. The conviction of all other accused Under Section 302, IPC or in the alternative Under Section 302/ 149, IPC is bad and incorrect and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

21. We have perused the entire prosecution evidence and find that Jagdish inflicted pharsi blow on the eye of Jagannath, while Bheru inflicted pharsi blow on the head of Jagannath.Though there is some discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses, but it is established that both these accused inflicted blows by Pharsi to Jagannath. The injuries of Jagannath indicate that there was fracture under right eye. There was another incised wound 3/4' below injury No. 2. There were fractures also of radius, ulna, febula and of the bone of right side face. Therefore, Jagdish and Bheru appellants are found guilty for causing these grievous injuries by sharp edged weapon under Section 326, IPC.

22. Ramlal (PW 2) has stated that Devilal inflicted blow on his left hand finger, Tulsya gave blow on left foot, and Ramnath (PW 6) has stated that he was beaten by Mahadev who gave blow ON his right hand while Ratyna gave blow on right knee. Bheru also inflicted blow on his right knee. Mangi Lal (PW 7) has stated that Bheru gave blow on his heck and Jagdish gave blow on his shoulder by pharsi. Tulsya inflicted blow on his right hand. Rame-shwar (PW 8) has stated that Mahadev inflicted lathi blow on his right hand and Ratnya gave lathi blow on his left hand. Ramchand (PW 9) has stated that Mahadev inflicted lathi blow on his left hand finger, Deviya inflicted pharsi blow on his left eye and Ram Ratan inflicted lathi blow on left foot. All the above injured persons were medically examined by Dr. B.D. Sharma (PW 15) and he has proved their injuries. Thus, it is clear that the accused Deviya, Mahadev, Ratnya and Bheru are guilty of the offence Under Section 323, IPC. From the evidence it is clear that Bheru, Jagdish Deviya had caused injuries by sharp weapon, and as such they are also found guilty of the offence Under Section 324, IPC. The accused Mahadev gave blow to Ramchand (PW 9) resulting in the fracture of left hand finger. As such, Mahadev is also found guilty of the offence Under Section 325, IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ramchand.

23. In view of our above discussion, we find that the accused Ramdayal is guilty of the offence Under Section 326. IPC. Accussd Jagdish and Bheru are guilty of the offence Under Section 326, IPC. Accused Mahadev is guilty of the offence Under Section 325, IPC. Accused Bhesu, Jagdish and Deviya are guilty of the offence Under Section 324 IPC. The accused Deviya, Mahadev, Ratnya and Bheru are guilty of the offence Under Section 323, IPC.

24. In the result, the appeal of the appellants is partly accepted. All the appellants are aqcuitted of the offence Under Section 148, IPC, 302 or in the alternative 302/149, IPC, and 307 or in the alternative 307/149, IPC. But the following appellants are convicted and sentenced as noted against each:

(1) Ramdayal Under Section 304(11), IPC 5 years RI and fine of

Rs. 2000/-in default of

payment of fine to

further 1 year's RI

(2) Jagdish Under Section 326, IPC 4 years RI and a fine

of Rs. 200/-, and in

default of payment of

fine to further 6

months RI

Under Section 324, IPC 2 years RI and a

fine of Rs. 200/-,

and in default of

payment of fine to

further 2 months RI

(3) Bheru Under Section 326, IPC 4 years RI and a

fine ot Rs. 200/-,

and in default of

payment of fine to

further 6 months RI

Under Section 324, IPC 2 years RI and a fine

of Rs. 200/-, and in

default of payment of

fine to further 2

months RI

Under Section 323, IPC 1 year s RI and a fine

of Rs.100/-and in def-

ault of payment of fine

to further one month's

RI

(4) Deviya Under Section 234, IPC 2 years RI and a fine

of Rs. 200/-and in

default to further 2

months RI

Under Section 323, IPC 1 year s RI and a fine

of Rs. 100/- and in

default to further one

month's RI

(5) Mahadev Under Section 325, IPC 3 years RI and a fine

of Rs.200/-and in de-

fault of payment of

fine to further 3

months RI

Under Section 323, IPC 1 year's RI and a fine

of Rs. 100/ and in de-

fault of payment of

fine to further one

month's RI

(6) Ratnya Under Section 323, IPC 1 year's RI and a fine

of Rs. 100/- and in

default of payment of

fine to further one

month's RI.

25. The sentences passed against Jagdish, Bheru, Deviya and Mahadev shall run concurrently.

26. The appellants Onkar and Jagannath sons of Mula are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

27. The appellants Ramdayal, Jagdish and Bheru are in Jail. They shall be detained in jail to undergo the sentences awarded to them. The appellants Deviya, Mahadev and Ratnya are on bail, and their bail bonds are cancelled. The learned Sessions Judge, Tonk is directed to issue warrant of arrest against these three appellants and to send them to jail for undergoing the sentences awarded to them by this Court.

28. Out of the amount of fine realised from the above mentioned accused persons, half of the amount of fine shall be paid to the widow of deceased Jagnnath and other legal representatives entitled under the Hindu law. Learned Sessions Judge, Tonk shall take appropriate steps in this regard.


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