Bapu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/768922
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnJan-23-1987
Case NumberD.B. Cr. Appeal No. 217 of 1986
Judge Narendra Mohan Kasliwal and; Mohini Kapoor, JJ.
Reported in1987(2)WLN859
AppellantBapu Lal
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
penal code - sections 302 & 304, part-ii--two injuries by blunt weapon--death after 2 days--sudden quarrel over wheat--no premeditation--held, accused can be convicted under section 304, part-ii. ;appeal partly allowed - - both the above injuries were sufficient to cause death separtely as well as cumulatively. in these circumstances the case clearly falls under exception 4 of section 300, ipc and the accused appellant can he held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under part-ii of section 304, ipc.1. this appeal by the accused bapu lal is directed against the judgment of learned sessions judge, jhalawar dated 4th march, 1986 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. l,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. shortly stated the facts of the case are that on 13th december, 1984 at 11.30 p.m. mst. dhapu bai pw 1 lodged a report at police station aklera. it was submitted in the report that her father had come to meet her at about 6-7 p.m. the accused bapu lal came with a lathi in his hand and started fighting with her father. thereafter, the accused struck 2-3 blows on the head of her father. when the informant went to rescue her father then she was also given beating. at that time the accused devia and motia also came on the spot and told bapu accused to beat her father and to throw him in a ditch. thereafter, dhoolia, kalu, kanahiya son of bhanwar lal meena came on the spot and they intervened and took her father to their house. thereafter, the informant went to village maithoon, her father's village and narrated the incident to her mother. thereafter ram singh and son of baldev meena brought a bulluck-cart to devli and from there she along with the above persons had brought the injured in the bulluck-cart and lodged the report. it was further mentioned in the report that her husband was beating her for the last 2-3 days without any reason and she had sent this information to her father. her father had then come there to meet her and on this account accused bapu had given beating to her father. on the basis of the above report ex. p 1 the police sent the injured for examination of the injuries at hospital aklera. dr. arvind kumar pw 4 examined the injuries of manna lal and found the following injuries on his body.(1) little swelling with suspected fracture 3-1/2' x 3' over left partial bone of head;(2) little swelling with suspected fracture 2-1/2' x 2' over occipital bone of head:(3) little swelling 2' x 1/8' over right cheek;(4) abrasion 1/2' x 1/8' over right hand dorsally.3. according to dr. arvind kumar, all the above injuries had been inflicted by a blunt weapon. for injuries nos. 1 and 2 x-ray was advised and injuries no. 3 and 4 were found to be of simple nature. dr. arvind kumar advised the injured to be taken to hospital jhalawar. the injured manna lal succumbed to the injuries on 15th december, 1984 in the hospital at jhalawar. the police thereafter registered a case for offence under section 302 read with section 34, ipc and entered fir ex. p 2 in the rojnamcha. dr. chandra prakash pw 5 conducted the autopsy of the dead body of manna lal and recorded the following injuries in post mortem report ex. p 4.(1) bruise (blue) 3-1/2' x 3' left perital region;(2) bruise (blue) 2-1/2' x 2' occipital region;(3) bruise (blue) 2'x 1-1/2' right cheek;(4) abrasion 1/2' x 1/8' right hand;fracture of left perital and occipital bone, multiple pieces.4. according to dr. chandra prakash, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. according to dr. chandra prakash cause of the death was injuries on the head and coma. he further stated that injuries nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. both the above injuries were sufficient to cause death separtely as well as cumulatively. in the cross examination he stated that such injuries could be caused by a fall on a stone but not on account of any fall on wood.5. the police after completing the investigation filed a challan under section 302 ipc, against the accused bapu and under section 302 read with sections 115-116, ipc against accused motia and devia. during the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. the accused bapj in his statement recorded under section 313, cr.pc denied the incident. he further stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. when he returned back to his house in the evening at 6.00 p.m. from his field then gopal told him that manna (deceased) had come to take wheat. manna was trying to take wheat by force and fell down when he was trying to snatch 'tagari'. on this account he got injuries in the head. he did not inflict any injuries on manna. the sub-inspector arrested him in the case. so far as devi and motia are concerned they denied the incident and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case in order to save gopal. the accused persons in their defence examined gopal husband of smt. dhapu pw 1. gopal dw 1 stated that when he had returned back in the evening from his field then mannalal was putting the wheat in the cart with a tagari. about 4 to 5 mounds of wheat were lying in the cart. the wheat belonged to his father. when gopal asked minnalal as to how he was taking the wheat then mannalal told that his daughter dhapu had told him to take the same. gopal further stated that he asked mannalal not to take the wheat but he did not stop and thereafter he caught hold of the tagari and in dragging the same mannalal fell down and received the injuries in his head by falling on a stone.6. learned sessions judge after discussing the entire evidence acquitted the accused devilal and motia but convicted and sentenced the accused bapu lal in the manner indicated above.7. it may be mentioned at this stage that mst. dhapu is the wife of gopal dw 1. the accused appellant bapu is the yougner brother of dw 1 gopal. the deceassd mannalal is the father of mst. dhapu. the conviction of the accused bapu lal is based on the sole testimony of mst. dhaou pw 1. even according to the findings recorded by the learned sessions judge the incident took place because mst. dhapu was trying to take wheat by loading in a cart with the help of her lather mannalal. it has come on record that the relations of gopal and mst. dhapu were strained and on that account mannalal deceased had come to meet her daughter dhapu. it has been admitted by mst. dhapu that she was putting the wheat in the cart. her father had asked her as to how much wheat she wanted to take. she had dropped 10-15 tagaries of wheat in the cart that is she was bringing the wheat in the tagari and her father was putting the same in the cart. she denied the suggestion that the said wheat belonged to devi and motia also and was a joint property of all the persons. she further stated that this wheat belonged to her. learned sessions judge has recorded the findings that mst. dhapu was supported by her husband at the instance of the father of her husband. she was not given any separate wheat but was given a separate bada and a house in the bada for residence. mst. dhapu in these circumstances could have taken the wheat with the help of her father alone and at the time of the incident she was trying to remove the wheat. the incident of beating took place on account of taking the wheat. learned sessions judge further found that it was quite natural for the accused not to tolerate the interference of the lather of mst. dhapu in the affairs of the family of accused persons. it has been further found that in such circumstances the beating given by bapu lal to father of mst. dhapu appears to be quite natural.8. in view of the above finding recorded by the sessions judge himself and taking note of the fact that only two injuries were inflicted on the head of manna lal which resulted into his death after two days of the incident, it cannot be said that the accused bapu lal had any intention to cause the death of mannalal. the incident took place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel regarding taking of wheat by manna lal. accused bapu lal did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. in these circumstances the case clearly falls under exception 4 of section 300, ipc and the accused appellant can he held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under part-ii of section 304, ipc.9. in the result the appeal is allowed in part, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant bapu lal under section 302, ipc is set aside. he is now convicted under section 304, part-ii, ipc and sentenced to five year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2000/-. in default of payment of line the accused will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. in case the fine is realised from the accused, the same would be paid by way of compensation to smt. ram pyari, widow of manna lal by caste meena; resident of village maithoon. in case the fine is realised or paid by the accused, learned sessions judge jhalawar will take steps for making the payment of fine to smt. rampyari, widow of manna lal.
Judgment:

1. This appeal by the accused Bapu Lal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 4th March, 1986 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. l,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on 13th December, 1984 at 11.30 p.m. Mst. Dhapu Bai PW 1 lodged a report at police station Aklera. It was submitted in the report that her father had come to meet her at about 6-7 p.m. The accused Bapu Lal came with a lathi in his hand and started fighting with her father. Thereafter, the accused struck 2-3 blows on the head of her father. When the informant went to rescue her father then she was also given beating. At that time the accused Devia and Motia also came on the spot and told Bapu accused to beat her father and to throw him in a ditch. Thereafter, Dhoolia, Kalu, Kanahiya son of Bhanwar Lal Meena came on the spot and they intervened and took her father to their house. Thereafter, the informant went to village Maithoon, her father's village and narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter Ram Singh and son of Baldev Meena brought a bulluck-cart to Devli and from there she along with the above persons had brought the injured in the bulluck-cart and lodged the report. It was further mentioned in the report that her husband was beating her for the last 2-3 days without any reason and she had sent this information to her father. Her father had then come there to meet her and on this account accused Bapu had given beating to her father. On the basis of the above report Ex. P 1 the police sent the injured for examination of the injuries at hospital Aklera. Dr. Arvind Kumar PW 4 examined the injuries of Manna Lal and found the following injuries on his body.

(1) Little swelling with suspected fracture 3-1/2' X 3' over left partial bone of head;

(2) Little swelling with suspected fracture 2-1/2' X 2' over occipital bone of head:

(3) Little swelling 2' X 1/8' over right cheek;

(4) Abrasion 1/2' X 1/8' over right hand dorsally.

3. According to Dr. Arvind Kumar, all the above injuries had been inflicted by a blunt weapon. For injuries Nos. 1 and 2 X-ray was advised and injuries No. 3 and 4 were found to be of simple nature. Dr. Arvind Kumar advised the injured to be taken to hospital Jhalawar. The injured Manna Lal succumbed to the injuries on 15th December, 1984 in the hospital at Jhalawar. The police thereafter registered a case for offence under section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and entered FIR EX. P 2 in the Rojnamcha. Dr. Chandra Prakash PW 5 conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Manna Lal and recorded the following injuries in post mortem report Ex. P 4.

(1) Bruise (Blue) 3-1/2' X 3' Left perital region;

(2) Bruise (Blue) 2-1/2' X 2' Occipital region;

(3) Bruise (Blue) 2'X 1-1/2' Right Cheek;

(4) Abrasion 1/2' X 1/8' Right Hand;

Fracture of left perital and occipital bone, Multiple pieces.

4. According to Dr. Chandra Prakash, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. According to Dr. Chandra Prakash cause of the death was injuries on the head and coma. He further stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Both the above injuries were sufficient to cause death separtely as well as cumulatively. In the cross examination he stated that such injuries could be caused by a fall on a stone but not on account of any fall on wood.

5. The police after completing the investigation filed a challan under Section 302 IPC, against the accused Bapu and under section 302 read with Sections 115-116, IPC against accused Motia and Devia. During the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. The accused Bapj in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr.PC denied the incident. He further stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. When he returned back to his house in the evening at 6.00 p.m. from his field then Gopal told him that Manna (deceased) had come to take wheat. Manna was trying to take wheat by force and fell down when he was trying to snatch 'Tagari'. On this account he got injuries in the head. He did not inflict any injuries on Manna. The Sub-Inspector arrested him in the case. So far as Devi and Motia are concerned they denied the incident and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case in order to save Gopal. The accused persons in their defence examined Gopal husband of Smt. Dhapu PW 1. Gopal DW 1 stated that when he had returned back in the evening from his field then Mannalal was putting the wheat in the cart with a Tagari. About 4 to 5 mounds of wheat were lying in the cart. The wheat belonged to his father. When Gopal asked Minnalal as to how he was taking the wheat then Mannalal told that his daughter Dhapu had told him to take the same. Gopal further stated that he asked Mannalal not to take the wheat but he did not stop and thereafter he caught hold of the Tagari and in dragging the same Mannalal fell down and received the injuries in his head by falling on a stone.

6. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the entire evidence acquitted the accused Devilal and Motia but convicted and sentenced the accused Bapu Lal in the manner indicated above.

7. It may be mentioned at this stage that Mst. Dhapu is the wife of Gopal DW 1. The accused appellant Bapu is the yougner brother of DW 1 Gopal. The deceassd Mannalal is the father of Mst. Dhapu. The conviction of the accused Bapu Lal is based on the sole testimony of Mst. Dhaou PW 1. Even according to the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge the incident took place because Mst. Dhapu was trying to take wheat by loading in a cart with the help of her lather Mannalal. It has come on record that the relations of Gopal and Mst. Dhapu were strained and on that account Mannalal deceased had come to meet her daughter Dhapu. It has been admitted by Mst. Dhapu that she was putting the wheat in the cart. Her father had asked her as to how much wheat she wanted to take. She had dropped 10-15 Tagaries of wheat in the cart that is she was bringing the wheat in the Tagari and her father was putting the same in the cart. She denied the suggestion that the said wheat belonged to Devi and Motia also and was a joint property of all the persons. She further stated that this wheat belonged to her. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded the findings that Mst. Dhapu was supported by her husband at the instance of the father of her husband. She was not given any separate wheat but was given a separate Bada and a house in the Bada for residence. Mst. Dhapu in these circumstances could have taken the wheat with the help of her father alone and at the time of the incident she was trying to remove the wheat. The incident of beating took place on account of taking the wheat. Learned Sessions Judge further found that it was quite natural for the accused not to tolerate the interference of the lather of Mst. Dhapu in the affairs of the family of accused persons. It has been further found that in such circumstances the beating given by Bapu Lal to father of Mst. Dhapu appears to be quite natural.

8. In view of the above finding recorded by the Sessions Judge himself and taking note of the fact that only two injuries were inflicted on the head of Manna Lal which resulted into his death after two days of the incident, it cannot be said that the accused Bapu Lal had any intention to cause the death of Mannalal. The incident took place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel regarding taking of wheat by Manna Lal. Accused Bapu Lal did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In these circumstances the case clearly falls under exception 4 of Section 300, IPC and the accused appellant can he held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part-II of Section 304, IPC.

9. In the result the appeal is allowed in part, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Bapu Lal under section 302, IPC is set aside. He is now convicted under Section 304, Part-II, IPC and sentenced to five year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of line the accused will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In case the fine is realised from the accused, the same would be paid by way of compensation to Smt. Ram Pyari, widow of Manna Lal by Caste Meena; resident of village Maithoon. In case the fine is realised or paid by the accused, learned Sessions Judge Jhalawar will take steps for making the payment of fine to Smt. Rampyari, widow of Manna Lal.