Chunnilal vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.—By this appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment dated 22.06.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.45/85 whereby he has been convicted u/s 325 IPC and awarded sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which, to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment.

The instant case came to be initiated on the report lodged by Pannalal on 14.03.1985 at Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer. The said report was in respect of an incident which had taken place at 9.30 P.M. on 11.03.1985. It has been stated in the report that in the house of the complainant, accused Chunnilal was residing as a tenant. Further, it is stated in the report that at around 9.30 P.M. in the night when the tenant Chunnilal was asked to put off the light, he started abusing and came out of the house. Thereafter the other tenants in the house also came after hearing the hue and cry. According to the informant, the accused Chunnilal had caught hold of his right hand, twisted it and pushed him after giving beating with fist. As a result of it, he complained of pain on right side of the hip and on his right hand. Thereafter, the informant Pannalal went to the police station alongwith his son, for lodging the report.

As the police did not find any external injury on the complainant, a formal report was not registered and it was only entered in the ''roz namcha''. Thereafter the informant Pannalal was got medically examined which revealed that he sustained two injuries, which were swellings. However at about 7.20 A.M. on 14.03.1985, the informant Pannalal died and as such, a first information report came to be registered for the offence u/s 304 IPC. Thereafter the investigation commenced and after collection of evidence, police filed challan against the accused appellant for the offence u/s 304 IPC. It may be noted that after the death of Pannalal when his post-mortem was conducted, it was found that he was a chronic patient of tuberculosis and his both lungs had been damaged. It was also found that both the kidneys of Pannalal had nearly failed. In one of the kidneys, there were ten pieces of stones, out of which, two were of the size of 5x3x2 1/5 cms. In the left kidney, also two stones of small sizes were found. The accused appellant was arrested during the course of investigation.

After filing of the challan, the case was committed to the Sessions Court who had framed charge against the accused appellant u/s 302 IPC. The prosecution had in support of its case, produced eight witnesses and number of documents which were duly exhibited. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant denied of having committed any offence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/s 325 IPC and sentenced him for one year rigorous imprisonment.

The learned counsel for the accused appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned court below on various grounds. According to him, the accused appellant had not committed any offence and the major part of the prosecution story wherein the accused appellant had been charged for the offence u/s 302 IPC, has been disbelieved by the learned trial court itself and that is why, the accused appellant has been acquitted of the said offence. In respect of the offence u/s 325 IPC, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither from the medical evidence on record nor from any other evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned court below. He has submitted that there is no error whatsoever in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and he has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/s 325 IPC.

This Court has carefully gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and also the evidence on record which has been produced during the course of trial. A perusal of the injury report (Ex.P4) of the informant Pannalal would go to show that he had sustained two injuries only and both of them were swelling. However, the medical jurist had advised for X-ray for these injuries. But it is revealed from the record that the said X-rays of the informant were never conducted. The medical jurist, Shri G.L.Makwana, PW5 has also referred to the injuries sustained by Pannalal. A perusal of the statement further shows that according to the jurist the injuries had been caused by fall on the ground. The injury report (Ex.P4) does not disclose that the injuries were recently caused. Subsequently another requisition (Ex.P5) is said to be sent by the jurist regarding the duration of injuries but again the said requisition does not mention the date of its & issuance. Above all, the informant Pannalal who was admittedly about 70 years of the age and was suffering from many ailments which has resulted in his dearth.

So far as the offence u/s 325 IPC alleged to have been committed to the accused appellant and the conviction awarded by the learned trial court is concerned, it would be suffice to say that the same has not been proved by the prosecution by producing the appropriate evidence on record to show that the injury in question was grievous in nature. As stated above, the fact is that in respect of the said injury, x-ray was never got conducted and in such view, it cannot be said that injury in question falls within any of the clauses u/s 320 IPC. In absence of evidence to support the fact that the injury was of grievous nature, the conviction u/s 325 IPC cannot be sustained.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.06.1985 is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail and his bail bonds stand discharged.