Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, by which, the trial court acquitted the respondents-accused from the offence under Section 308 IPC but convicted them for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC and gave them benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The trial court also directed that all the three accused will pay Rs.1000/- each (in total Rs.3000/-) and the same shall be paid to injured-Kalu Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the trial court did not consider the matter in its true perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 308 IPC. It is contended that the injured Kalu Ram sustained four injuries. All the four injuries are on his head. In these circumstances, offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against the accused-respondents.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned passed by the trial court.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the challan papers as well as material available on record.

The injured-complainant PW-3 Kalu Ram specifically mentioned in the FIR that accused-Dharmpal inflicted injury by Kulhari on his head and forehead. Thereafter, Sant Lal inflicted lathi blow on his head and then Madan Lal inflicted injury by brick on his chest as well as on his abdomen but PW-6 Dr. Rakesh Sharma stated in his statement that all the four injuries were simple in nature by blunt weapon. The doctor did not found any injury on the abdomen or on the back side of the injured. Thus, there are major contradictions in the statement of the injured PW-3.

Section 308 IPC deals with prosecution of offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide, which reads as under:-

"308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.,-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Before an accused can be held to be guilty under Section 308 IPC, it is necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was existing.

From perusal of the statement of injured-Kalu Ram, it is evident that he never stated that accused caused injuries with intention to kill him or knowledge to kill him. All the four injuries received by the injured are simple in nature by blunt weapon. In these circumstances, in my considered view, the learned trial court has not committed any error while acquitting the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 308 IPC.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.