Station Dablana, District Bundi v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

Judgment

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Dinesh Son Of Shankar, Aheer, Resident Of Raghunath, Police Station Dablana District Bundi.

3. Mukesh Son Of Shankar, Aheer, Resident Of Raghunath, Police Station Dablana District Bundi.

4. Kamla Bai Wife Of Shankar, Aheer, Resident Of Raghunath, Police Station Dablana District Bundi.

5. Shankar Son Of Gandi Lal, Aheer, Resident Of Raghunath, Police Station Dablana District Bundi. ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy. G.A. Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 03/04/2025 Order

1. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant aggrieved and dissatisfied from judgment dated 23.07.2019 in Sessions Case No.45/2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 IPC and further released on probation. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were also acquitted from charge under Section 307/34 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:16494] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1964/2019]

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that on basis of Parchabayan of Chothmal, FIR No.317/2014 was registered at P.S. Dablana against the accused persons and police after investigation, has filed charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 34 and 307 IPC. He also submitted that the Trial Court found prima facie case to frame charge under Section 307 IPC. He also referred the statement of injured Sunil, Hari Shanker, Tulsa Bai, Chothmal and Ashok and submitted that all these have corroborated the story of prosecution. He further submitted that even the Medical Jurist has also affirmed the injuries sustained by Tulsa Bai and Chothmal. He submitted that the witnesses produced before the Trial Court have corroborated the content of FIR, but the Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondents-accused from charge under Section 307 IPC. He referred the provision of Section 307 IPC and submitted that in absence of opinion about injury, any accused cannot be acquitted from charge under Section 307 IPC as the Trial Court was duty bound to consider the intention of accused and also the weapon used by the accused. He further submitted that after releasing the accused on probation, the Trial Court has not awarded any compensation and same is contrary to Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-accused and he submitted that in a false and fabricated case, a charge-sheet has been filed and the Trial Court has not considered the fact that the respondents-accused were not aggressors. He also submitted that taking advantage of influence, a charge-sheet has been filed against the accused. He [2025:RJ-JP:16494] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1964/2019] further submitted that this is a case of free fight and same is evident from the evidence on record. He also referred the injury reports and submitted that neither Chothmal nor Tulsa Bai sustained any injury, which may be considered to be dangerous to life. At last, he submitted that respondent-accused are poor persons and are facing trial since 2015 and the order of acquittal is in accordance with facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

5. On basis of Parchabayan (Ex.P-20) of PW-10 Chothmal, FIR No.317/2014 was registered at P.S. Dablana, District Bundi. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the four accused Dinesh, Mukesh, Kamla and Shanker. Learned Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 325/34 and 307/34 IPC. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they opted not to submit any defence evidence. Learned Trial Court has acquitted all accused from charge under Section 307 IPC, but convicted Dinesh and Kamla Bai under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, Mukesh under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and Shanker under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC.

6. A perusal of evidence clearly indicate that the case is of free fight and the element of common intention is missing. The Trial Court on basis of evidence of injured PW-10 Chothmal, PW-1 Sunil, PW-7 Hari Shankar, PW-9 Tulsa Bai, PW-13 Rinkesh and PW- 12 Shanker has withdrawn a conclusion that it is a case of free fight and the assault was not a premeditated attempt. The [2025:RJ-JP:16494] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1964/2019] evidence of these injured is also not supported by independent witnesses PW-5 Girraj Yadav and PW-11 Kalyan Gurjar. The Trial Court has disbelieved the statement of PW-4 Shivraj Yadav and PW-6 Bhanwar Lal Yadav and specifically assigned a reason to disbelieve the statement of these witnesses. The case squarely rest upon the testimony of injured, who were family members of Chothmal. The numbers of persons from complainant party were six, whereas, the accused were four. The evidence suggested that the cross-case was also registered and same is pending for Trial. Ideally, the cross-cases have to be decided together, but same were not decided, therefore, we have no option except to bank upon the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the instant case.

7. We have gone through the injury reports of all six injured exhibited by PW-2 Dr. C.L. Dadhich and PW-14 Dr. Sirish Gupta. The evidence of both the witnesses suggested that none of the injury upon injured was dangerous to life. The evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that the intention of accused was to kill the injured or cause any injury, which is dangerous to life. In absence of intention, a person cannot be convicted under Section 307 IPC. Similarly, the injuries are not sufficient to draw a conclusion that same is sufficient in ordinary course of nature for death of any of injured. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error while acquitting the accused from charge under Section 307 IPC.

8. The element of common intention is missing in the instant case and the Trial Court has specifically referred the evidence and same is sufficient to considers the fact that it was a free fight and [2025:RJ-JP:16494] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1964/2019] not a pre-meditated assault, thus each of the accused is guilty for their individual act, but not for act committed by other accused.

9. The Trial Court has specifically noticed that a cross-case was also registered and it is a case of free fight, therefore, it is not appropriate to grant compensation. Looking to the nature of case and the evidence on record, the Trial Court has not committed any error while not granting compensation to the injured and complainant. The appeal sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

10. In view of aforesaid, the appeal preferred by appellant- complainant is hereby dismissed. GAURAV /182-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J