NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4044 of 2015)
(Crl. M.P. No. 4741/2015)
Mohar Singh … Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 25.02.2014,
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1998 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions
Judge, Karauli, under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986.
We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.1986, Rekh Singh (PW-1) was
going to get his tubewell engine repaired. He was stopped by appellant
Mohar Singh and three others. While other three caught hold of Rekh Singh,
appellant gave lathi blows on his neck, back and legs, due to which the
injured (Rekh Singh) fell down. Witnesses Man Singh (PW-2), Gyan Singh (PW-
3), and Ram Roop (PW-4) witnessed the incident. They took the injured to
hospital where Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (PW-5) recorded injuries suffered by
Rekh Singh in Ex. P-7, and also advised X-ray. After X-ray of injury on
head, suffered by the injured, fracture was detected and supplementary
report Ex. P-5 was prepared. PW-7 Manvendra Singh, S.H.O., Karauli,
received information from aforesaid hospital, and set the police machinery
into action. Sub-inspector, Bharat Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and
recorded “Parcha Bayan” - Ex. P-1. On the basis of said memorandum, First
Information Report No. 70/86 was registered at the Police Station. S.H.O,
Manvendra Singh (PW-7) investigated the Crime, and after interrogating the
witnesses, and inspection of site, filed charge-sheet against appellant
Mohar Singh and three others, namely, Ram Kishan and his sons Meetha Lal
and Bheem Singh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The concerned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving
necessary copies, appears to have committed the case to the Court of
Sessions for trial. The trial court, after hearing the parties, framed
charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against
all the four accused, including the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Rekh Singh
(injured), PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh, PW-4 Ram Roop (all the three
are witnesses), PW-5 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (who medically examined the
injured), PW-6 Bharat Singh, and PW-7 S.H.O. Manvendra Singh (Investigating
Officer).
Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which they pleaded that
evidence against them was false. However, no evidence in defence was
adduced.
The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that prosecution could
successfully prove charge of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC only
against Mohar Singh, and involvement of other three others, namely, Ram
Kishan (Father of Mohar Singh) and Meetha Lal and Bheem Singh (both
brothers of Mohar Singh) was doubtful. Accordingly, the trial court
convicted Mohar Singh, and after hearing of sentence, sentenced him to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 500/-
under Section 307 IPC, and further directed that in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo additional sentence of imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.04.1988 passed in Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986 by Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli, the convict
filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1986. However, the High Court, after
hearing the parties, found no force in the appeal, and dismissed the same.
Hence this appeal, through Special Leave.
Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the eight
injuries suffered by Rekh Singh which were recorded by Dr. Nand Lal Sharma
(PW-5) in his report Ex.P-6, which are reproduced below:-
“(a) Red blue mark10 x 8 cm on left temoral region of head and on parietal
region of skull, in which there was lot of swelling and left eye became
totally blue. This injury was long in nature.
(b) Red oblique bluish mark 7 x 3 cm., which was on right side of neck,
swelling was in it.
Oblique red blue mark 7 x 2 cm on upper part of left thigh.
Red blue mark 12 x 3 cm on left lower part of chest.
Cut wound 2 x 0.5 cm, which was skin deep, on the middle part of left leg,
where from blood was oozing out.
Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on left shoulder.
Red abrasion mark 2 x 1 cm also on left elbow.
Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on right hand.”
The medical officer has further proved supplementary report Ex.P-5 and
also the X-ray plates Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, and opined that there was fracture
corresponding to injury No.1. In his opinion the injuries were caused by
hard blunt object like lathi. However, in the cross-examination said
witness has stated that the injury could have been caused by fall.
The statement of the PW-1 Rekh Singh injured, is not only natural and
trustworthy, but also corroborated by medical evidence on record. Apart
from this, eye witnesses PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh and PW-4 Ram Roop
have further corroborated the incident. Injury on the head is so grievous
that the medical officer has opined, it could have caused death. As such,
we do not find any illegality committed by the courts below regarding
conviction of Mohar Singh (appellant) in respect of offence under Section
307 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that after the
incident, the injured has entered into compromise, and he does not want to
prosecute the appellant. In this connection, application for permission to
file additional document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been moved before us,
enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the villagers. Since
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence,
as such, we reject the compromise filed by the appellant. Though the victim
also appeared in person before us to corroborate that now he is no more
interested to prosecute the appellant, but considering the nature of
injuries and the nature of offence, we are not inclined to interfere with
the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant, and
affirmed by the High Court. However, taking note of above fact, we think
it just to reduce the period of sentence of imprisonment to three years
without interfering with the sentence of fine. This reduction in sentence
shall not be treated precedent for sentencing in respect of offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Accordingly, conviction is not interfered with but the sentence is reduced
to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appeal stands disposed of.
The appellant shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the
remaining unserved part of sentence, as modified by this Court.
……………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J.
New Delhi; [Prafulla C. Pant]
May 11, 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4044 of 2015)
(Crl. M.P. No. 4741/2015)
Mohar Singh … Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 25.02.2014,
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1998 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions
Judge, Karauli, under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986.
We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.1986, Rekh Singh (PW-1) was
going to get his tubewell engine repaired. He was stopped by appellant
Mohar Singh and three others. While other three caught hold of Rekh Singh,
appellant gave lathi blows on his neck, back and legs, due to which the
injured (Rekh Singh) fell down. Witnesses Man Singh (PW-2), Gyan Singh (PW-
3), and Ram Roop (PW-4) witnessed the incident. They took the injured to
hospital where Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (PW-5) recorded injuries suffered by
Rekh Singh in Ex. P-7, and also advised X-ray. After X-ray of injury on
head, suffered by the injured, fracture was detected and supplementary
report Ex. P-5 was prepared. PW-7 Manvendra Singh, S.H.O., Karauli,
received information from aforesaid hospital, and set the police machinery
into action. Sub-inspector, Bharat Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and
recorded “Parcha Bayan” - Ex. P-1. On the basis of said memorandum, First
Information Report No. 70/86 was registered at the Police Station. S.H.O,
Manvendra Singh (PW-7) investigated the Crime, and after interrogating the
witnesses, and inspection of site, filed charge-sheet against appellant
Mohar Singh and three others, namely, Ram Kishan and his sons Meetha Lal
and Bheem Singh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The concerned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving
necessary copies, appears to have committed the case to the Court of
Sessions for trial. The trial court, after hearing the parties, framed
charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against
all the four accused, including the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Rekh Singh
(injured), PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh, PW-4 Ram Roop (all the three
are witnesses), PW-5 Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (who medically examined the
injured), PW-6 Bharat Singh, and PW-7 S.H.O. Manvendra Singh (Investigating
Officer).
Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which they pleaded that
evidence against them was false. However, no evidence in defence was
adduced.
The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that prosecution could
successfully prove charge of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC only
against Mohar Singh, and involvement of other three others, namely, Ram
Kishan (Father of Mohar Singh) and Meetha Lal and Bheem Singh (both
brothers of Mohar Singh) was doubtful. Accordingly, the trial court
convicted Mohar Singh, and after hearing of sentence, sentenced him to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 500/-
under Section 307 IPC, and further directed that in default of payment of
fine, he shall undergo additional sentence of imprisonment for a period of
six months.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.04.1988 passed in Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986 by Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli, the convict
filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1986. However, the High Court, after
hearing the parties, found no force in the appeal, and dismissed the same.
Hence this appeal, through Special Leave.
Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the eight
injuries suffered by Rekh Singh which were recorded by Dr. Nand Lal Sharma
(PW-5) in his report Ex.P-6, which are reproduced below:-
“(a) Red blue mark10 x 8 cm on left temoral region of head and on parietal
region of skull, in which there was lot of swelling and left eye became
totally blue. This injury was long in nature.
(b) Red oblique bluish mark 7 x 3 cm., which was on right side of neck,
swelling was in it.
Oblique red blue mark 7 x 2 cm on upper part of left thigh.
Red blue mark 12 x 3 cm on left lower part of chest.
Cut wound 2 x 0.5 cm, which was skin deep, on the middle part of left leg,
where from blood was oozing out.
Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on left shoulder.
Red abrasion mark 2 x 1 cm also on left elbow.
Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on right hand.”
The medical officer has further proved supplementary report Ex.P-5 and
also the X-ray plates Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, and opined that there was fracture
corresponding to injury No.1. In his opinion the injuries were caused by
hard blunt object like lathi. However, in the cross-examination said
witness has stated that the injury could have been caused by fall.
The statement of the PW-1 Rekh Singh injured, is not only natural and
trustworthy, but also corroborated by medical evidence on record. Apart
from this, eye witnesses PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh and PW-4 Ram Roop
have further corroborated the incident. Injury on the head is so grievous
that the medical officer has opined, it could have caused death. As such,
we do not find any illegality committed by the courts below regarding
conviction of Mohar Singh (appellant) in respect of offence under Section
307 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that after the
incident, the injured has entered into compromise, and he does not want to
prosecute the appellant. In this connection, application for permission to
file additional document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been moved before us,
enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the villagers. Since
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence,
as such, we reject the compromise filed by the appellant. Though the victim
also appeared in person before us to corroborate that now he is no more
interested to prosecute the appellant, but considering the nature of
injuries and the nature of offence, we are not inclined to interfere with
the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant, and
affirmed by the High Court. However, taking note of above fact, we think
it just to reduce the period of sentence of imprisonment to three years
without interfering with the sentence of fine. This reduction in sentence
shall not be treated precedent for sentencing in respect of offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Accordingly, conviction is not interfered with but the sentence is reduced
to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appeal stands disposed of.
The appellant shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the
remaining unserved part of sentence, as modified by this Court.
……………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J.
New Delhi; [Prafulla C. Pant]
May 11, 2015.
