STATE OF RAJASTHANversusMOHAN LAL & ORS.

                       [2012] 2 S.C.R. 564


A                    STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                 v.
                       MOHAN LAL & ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2005)

                        MARCH 23, 2012
B
        [T.S. THl\.KUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.)

        Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3021149, 323, 3241149 and
  325 - Prosecution under- Conviction by trial court - High Court
C acquitting the accused uls. 3021149 and convicting them
   under rest of the provisions - On appeal, held: High Court was
  justified in holding that the injuries were simple in nature on
   non-vital parts of the body and were not sufficient to cause
   death - Prosecution failed to establish the charge of murder
o  beyond reasonable doubt - Sentence for the period already
   undergone is also justified.

      The respondents accused were prosecuted u/ss. 148,
  302/149, 323, 324/149 and 325 IPC for having caused
  death of one person and causing injury to another. Trial
E Court convicted the accused under all the provisions. On
  appeal, High Court partly allowed the appeal. It convicted
  the accused u/ss. 148, 323, 324/149 and 325 IPC, while
  acquitted them u/s. 302/149 IPC holding that the injuries
  were simple in nature on non-vital parts of the body and
F thus were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
  course of nature. Hence, the present appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G       HELD: 1.1 The High Court was justified in holding that
    the prosecution had not been able to establish the charge
    of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court
    has correctly observed thats the deposition of (PW-13)
    had clearly established that the injuries sustained by the
H                               564
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAN LAL & ORS.                  565


deceased were all simple in nature inflicted upon non-           A
vital parts of the body. It is also difficult to attribute any
knowledge to the accused that the injuries inflicted by
them were likely to cause death, the same being simple
in nature. The doctor had also clearly admitted in cross-
examination that no finding was recorded in the post-            B
mortem report Exh.P-21 that the injuries in question were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
There was, in that view of the matter and in the absence
of any other evidence to support the charge levelled
against the accused, no reason to find them guilty of            c
murder. [Paras 6 and 8) (569-C-E]

      1.2 The trial court had placed heavy reliance upon the
presence of blood clots below the scalp and inside the
middle portion of the skull of the deceased to come to the
conclusion that the death may have been caused by the            D
injuries on the head which is a vital part of the body. The
trial court failed to note that there was no external injury
reported by the doctor on any part of the head. If the
respondents really intended to commit the murder of the
deceased and if they were armed with weapons like                E
'lathis' and 'dhariyas' of which the latter is a sharp-edged
weapon, it is difficult to appreciate why they would not
have attacked on any vital part of his body. The absence
of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence
of external injury on the skull clearly show that the            F
accused had not intended to cause the death of the
deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to
cause death. [Para 7) [569-F-H; 570-A]

      2. On the question of sentence, there is no                G
compelling reason to interfere. The incident in question
is more than 12 years old. The respondents have already
suffered incarceration for four years which should suffice
having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which
                                                                 H
    566       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A the incident in question appears to have taken place.
  [Para 8] [570-C-D]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 316 of 2005.
B       From the Judgment & Order dated 02.12.2003 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal
    Appeal No. 509 of 2001.

          Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.
c         V.J. Francis, Anupam Mishra for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          :r.s. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave assails
D the correctness of the judgment and order dated 2nd
  December, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
  Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2001
  filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence
  for offences punishable under sections 148, 302/149, 323, 324/
E 149 and 325 of the IPC has been partly allowed and while
  setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents
  under Section 302/149, ~ffirmed their conviction for the
  remaining offences with the direction that the period already
  undergone by them shall suffice.
F       2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the charge-sheet
  against the respondents, their trial and conviction as also the
  filing of the appeal before the High Court have been set out at
  considerable length in the impugned judgment passed by the
  High Court. We need not therefore re-count the same over
G again except to the extent the same is absolutely necessary to
  understand the genesis of the prosecution case and the
  submissions made before us at the bar. Suffice it to say that
  Shambhu Lal (PW-1), Piru (PW-7) and Lalu (deceased) all real
  brothers and residents of village Sewana in the State of
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAN LAL & ORS.                 567
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
Rajasthan were on their way back from the house of one           A
Arjunsha Ghanava on 23rd January, 2000 at about 9.1 O p.m.,
when they were attacked by the respondents Mohan !..al, Nathu,
Suraj Mal, Laxman, Kalu and Balu Ram, also residents of
village Sewana. The accused were, according to the
prosecution, armed with lathis, and dhariyas (Scythes) which     B
they used freely to cause injuries to the deceased and Shambu
Lal (PW-1). The prosecution case is that Piru (PW-7) somehow
managed to escape from the clutches of the respondents and
rushed to the Police Station to lodge an oral report at about
11.30 p.m., on the basis whereof the police registered a case    c
for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323
and 341 of the IPC, and hurried to the place of occurrence to
take the injured Shambhu and Lalu to Pratapgarh Hospital
where Lalu succumbed to his injuries on 24th January, 2000
at about 6.30 a.m.
                                                                 D
    A charge under Section 302 IPC was accordingly added
by the police who completed the investigation and filed a
challan before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. The
respondents were committed to face trial to the Sessions
Judge at Pratapgarh who made over the case to Additional         E
Sessions Jud~e (Fast Track) before whom the respondents
pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

     In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many
as 17 witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the post-     F
mortem examination of the deceased. The accused examined
Vajeram in defence apart from getting Exh.D-1 to D-6 marked
at the trial.

     3. The Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that
the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case. All the       G
accused-respondents were sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment for offences of murder of deceased Latu. In
addition they were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment that
ranged between one year to three years for offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324 ad 325 of the IPC. A fine of Rs.1500/    H
    568        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 2 S.C.R.


A - in total and a sentence in default was also imposed upon them.

         4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the
    Sessions Judge, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal
    No.509 of 2001 before the High Court which has been partly
    allowed by the High Court by the judgment and order impugned
8
    in this appeal. The High Court upon a fresh appraisal of the
    evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence came
    to the conclusion that the former had failed to establish the
    charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC
    framed against the respondents. The High Court observed:
c
         "In the instant case from the deposition of Dr.Mathur, it is
        .more than clear that all the injuries found on the persons
         of the deceased were simple in nature. Three injuries were
       · found by pointed object and other were abrasions. It is not
D        in dispute that the three injuries found on the person of Piru
         were all simple in nature and by blunt object. The injured
         Shambhu Lal received two grievous injuries on left wrist
         and right leg by blunt object and one simple injury on left
         little finger by sharp object."
E
        5. The High Court has on the above basis acquitted the
  respondents of the charge of murder but upheld their conviction
  for the remaining offences. On the question of sentence, the
  High Court found that the respondents have been in custody
  with effect from 24th January, 2000 and accordingly sentenced
F them to the period already undergone. The High Court
  observed:

          "Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The
          appellants are acquitted of the charge punishable under
G         Section 302/149 of the l.P.C. Regardir.g other offences the
          findings of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court is
          maintained. So far as the question of sentence is
          concerned, the Appellants are in custody w.e.f. 24.1.2000.
          In l!tie totality of circumstances, we are of the view that in
H         the circumstances of the case a sentence of imprisonment
                                                                      /
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAN LAL & ORS.                   569
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     already undergone -would meet the ends of justice.              A
     Consequently, the sentence awarded to the appellants is
     modified to the extent that they are awarded the sentence
     already undergone by them. The judgment of the learned
     Court shall stand modified accordingly. The appeal is
     disposed of in the manner indicated above. The appellants       B
     shall be released forthwith, if not needed in connection with
     any other case."

       6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
 length and perused the record. The High Court was, in our
 opinion, justified in holding that the prosecution had not been C
 able to establish the charge of murder beyond a reasonable
 doubt. The High Court has correctly observed that the
 deposition of Dr. Narendra Swarup Mathur (PW-13) had clearly
 established that the injuries sustained by the deceased were
 all simple in nature inflicted upon non-vital parts of the body. D
 The doctor had also clearly admitted in cross-examination that
 no finding was recorded in the post- mortem report Exh.P-21
 that the injuries in question were sufficient in the ordinary course
 of nature to cause death. There was, in that view of the matter
 and in the absence of any other evidence to support the charge E
 levelled against the respondents, no reason to find them guilty
 of murder.

       7. It is noteworthy that the Trial court had placed heavy
 relianr.e upon the presence of blood clots below the scalp and F
 inside the middle portion of the skull of the deceased to come
 to tbe conclusion that the death may have been caused by the
 injuries on the head which is a vital part of the body. The Trial
 Court obviously failed to note that there was no external injury
 reported by the doctor on any part of the head. If the G
 respondents really intended to commit the murder of the
_deceased and if they were armed with weapons like Lathis and
 Dhariyas of which the latter is a sharp-edged weapon, it is
 difficult to appreciate why they would not have attacked any vital
 part of his body. The absence of any injury on any vital part and
                                                                     H
    570       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 2 S.C.R.


A particularly the absence of external injury on the skull clearly
  show that the accused had not intended to cause the death of
  the deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to
  cause death.

        8. It is also difficult to attribute any knowledge to the
8
  respondents that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to
  cause death, the same being simple in nature. Even the doctor
  who conducted the post-mortem did not certify the injuries to
  be sufficient to cause death in the qrdinary course. Such being
C the state of evidence, the High Court was, in our view, justified
  in allowing the appeal of the respondents in part and acquitting
  them of the charge of the murder while maintaining their
  conviction for the remaining offences with which they were
  charged. Even on the question of sentence, we do not see any
  compelling reason to interfere. The incident in question is more
D than 12 years old. The respondents have already suffered
  incarceration for four years which should suffice having regard
  to the totality of the circumstances in which the incident in
  question appears to have taken place.

E         9. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

    K.K.T.                                       Appeal dismissed .




                                        ...