AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramchandra Naga, Babulal and Phooli were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. It related to the
homicidal death of deceased Mohan at around 12:30 PM on 27.7.2011 outside the shop of Ramchandra Naga.
Vide judgment dated 6.7.2016 whereas Phooli has been acquitted, Ramchandra and Babulal have been convicted for having murdered Mohanlal
and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The two have challenged their conviction vide D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 789/2016.Â
The complainant, Mahendra has sought leave to appeal qua Phooli being acquitted.
At 12:30 PM of 27.07.2011 roznamcha entry Ex.P-19 was recorded by the Duty Officer that over the telephone information was received of a
quarrel outside the shop of Ramchandra Naga (appellant no.1). SHO Hiralal accompanied by ASI Sunder Lal proceeded to the spot and on return
made roznamcha entry Ex.P-20 at 01:10 PM. It is recorded therein that police officers who reached the spot met Ramchandra Naga and his family
member; the people gathered informed that a quarrel had taken place between Mohan (deceased) and Ramchandra Naga.
Soon thereafter, Mahendra, PW-1 reached the police station and handed over the written complaint Ex.P-1, pursuant whereto FIR Ex.P-2 was
registered for offences punishable for Section 143/341/302/435 IPC. As per the written complaint filed by Mahendra, he and Mohanlal were
proceeding on a Motorcycle and at 12:30 PM on 27.7.2011 as they passed by the shop of Ramchandra Naga, he called out and requested them to
stop, he said that he wanted to resolve a pending issue. They stopped. Ramchandra Naga called for his family members and started abusing.Â
Ramchandra Naga and Tarachand caught hold of Mohan and Bodhraj inflicted a knife blow on Mohan. Bodhraj, Nemichand, Phooli Devi, Geeta
w/o Budhiprakash, Babulal and Kapil were armed with sticks, kassis and knife. They started fighting. He and Ashok Ola and Ramkaran tried to
intervene. They took Mohan to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, but he died on the way.
But soon thereafter Mahendra changed his version. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC he stated that upon Ramchandra calling for his
family members, Babulal, Phooli and Kapil came out. Babulal, Phooli and Kapil caught Mohan and Ramchandra Naga stabbed him with a knife.Â
We also note that investigation by the police revealed that at the time of the incident apart from two appellants only Phooli and Kapil were present at
the site when the crime took place.
Dead body of Mohan was sent to the mortuary of SMS Hospital where Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, PW-18 conducted the post mortem and
prepared the post mortem report Ex.P-31 recording therein that a single stab wound was noted, entry point being between 8th and 9th intercostal
space, the weapon of offence pierced through the muscles, lower lobe of the right lung and entered in the ventricle. Cause of death obviously was
hemorrhagic shock on account of excessive bleeding. The injury was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
On the disclosure statement Ex.P-28 of Ramchandra Naga, the weapon of offence, a Parkhi was recovered, the seizure memo Ex.P-5 records the
same to be having length of 36 cm.
Ramchandra, Phooli Devi, Babulal and Kapil were arrested. MLCs of Ramchandra, Phooli Devi and Babulal Ex.P-25, Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27
evince simple injuries on them. The nature of the injuries reflects the three having participated in a scuffle. The injuries are simple abrasions.
Apparent from the fact that only Ramchandra Naga, Babulal and Phooli were sent for trial before the Court of Sessions and Kapil was sent to trial
before the Juvenile Court, is the fact that Mahendra’s written complaint Ex.P-1 was highly exaggerated. It is obviously a case where he tried to
falsely implicate all family members of Ramchandra Naga and as we notice the facts emerging from the evidence, the problem would be that in said
written complaint role alleged to Ramchandra Naga and Babulal was of catching hold of the deceased and Bodhraj inflicting the solitary fatal blow.
But as noted above soon after he lodged the complaint Ex.P-1, Mahendra’s statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded, in which he
gave a diluted version stating that Babulal, Phooli and Kapil had caught the deceased and Ramchandra Naga inflicted the stab wound.
Appearing as PW-1, Mahendra deposed that the incident took place on 27.7.2011. He and deceased Mohan were travelling on a motorcycle.Â
They were to bring a tractor. As they crossed the shop of Ramchandra he called Mohan and requested him to stop. They stopped and while
standing a discussion took place. Ramchandra Naga called for his family members. Babulal, Nemichand, Kapil and Phooli Devi came out.Â
They were abusing. Babulal, Nemichand and Kapil caught hold of Mohan and Ramchandra Naga inflicted a knife blow on the person of Mohan.
Ramkaran and Ashok intervened. They took Mohanlal to the hospital. He died on the way.
Relevant would it be to note that the witness was confronted with the written complaint Ex.P-1 and concerning its contents said that he was
mentally disturbed. The true facts were the ones which he stated to the police when the statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded.
Ashok Kumar PW-2 deposed that he was passing by the place where the crime took place. He saw Mohan and Ramchandra having a verbal
quarrel. Babulal and Kapil caught Mohan and Ramchandra Naga took out a knife from his pocket and struck a blow on the chest of Mohan.Â
Similar is the testimony of Ramkaran PW-3.
Now, PW-1 would be a discredited witness for the reason his initial written complaint gave an exaggerated version with an attempt to falsely
implicate all family members of Ramchandra Naga. To what extent his testimony is corroborated by other two prosecution witnesses, who were
eye-witnesses, would be relevant for the present discussion.
PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3 to the extent that the stabbing was preceded by a verbal talk between Ramchandra Naga and
Mohan. Suddenly Ramchandra Naga inflicted the stab wound. Babulal and Kapil were assigned the role of catching hold. The testimonies of
PW-2 and PW-3 assigned no role to Phooli Devi and even testimony of PW-1 does not assign any role to Phooli Devi of catching hold and thus Phooli
Devi’s acquittal by the learned Court of Sessions is affirmed. Leave to appeal sought by the complainant would require it to be dismissed.
Concerning the conviction of Ramchandra Naga and Babulal, in view of the aforenoted evidence and highlighting that a single stab wound was
inflicted, shows that there was no premeditated attack. It is not a case where the family members had any preconceived common intention. Of-
course, common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment but the evidence on record does not bring out any such common intention. As
noted above, the medical evidence shows scuffle injuries on the accused as well and thus the possibility of jostling being perceived by PW-2 and PW-3
as the act of catching hold cannot be ruled out. Thus merely because Babulal and Kapil, during the jostling had caught the deceased would not
evidence any common intention in the form of facilitation of the crime by Ramchandra. As noted above, according to the two witnesses,
Ramchandra suddenly took out the knife and stabbed the deceased. Thus Babulal would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
As regards Ramchandra, evidence brings out that the act of stabbing was preceded by a discussion to sort out some dispute between the deceased
and Ramchandra. The discussion led to remonstration and then a singular blow struck. It is a case where the act took place upon a sudden
quarrel and thus for the act of stabbing the deceased the offence committed by Ramchandra Naga would be culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, punishable under Section 304 Part-1 IPC.
To bring the curtains down, leave to appeal sought by the complainant is dismissed. Appeal filed by Babulal is allowed. His conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of the offence he was charged for. Noting that Babulal had been granted
bail by this court, we discharge the bail bonds and the surety bonds. Appeal filed by Ramchandra Naga is partially allowed. He is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 IPC for having caused death of Mohanlal. We note that Ramchandra Naga has spent over seven
years in jail and thus we sentence him to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone.