1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 630/2004 (Ram Kailash & Ram Vilas Vs. The State of Rajasthan) D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.4.2004 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK), NAGAUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.202/2001( 55/2001). DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15th Sept., 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Deepesh Beniwal, for the accused-appellant. Mr. J.P.S. Chouhdary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE THANVI, J.) 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 2. Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, whereby, he convicted and sentenced accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas as under: Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. Under Section 3/25 Arms Act Three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's S.I. Under Section 3/27 Arms Act Seven years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts leading to this appeal are that one Ram Chandra filed a report Ex.P-13 before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur on 16.6.2001 that on the very day, when he and Mangla Ram were going from Bodwa to Dadariya Khurd for attending 'maira', one suzuki motorcycle came from the 3. back side at a distance of ten kilometers away from Kuchera. Mangla Ram who was sitting on the back side of the motorcycle cried that someone from the suzuki motorcycle has fired upon him, thereupon, he saw that accused Ram Kailash and driver Mangi Lal were on the suzuki motorcycle. Accused appellant Ram Kailash fired with pistol, to whom, he and Mangla Ram Sarpanch identified. Sarpach Mangla Ram was taken to Kuchera hospital, and thereafter, at Nagaur and from there, he was referred to Jodhpur hospital. Upon this report, In-charge of Police Sation Kuchera registered a case under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and commenced investigation. Injured Mangla Ram was operated at Jodhpur Hospital, where he died on 22.6.2001. Thereafter, police filed challan against accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. Accused Ghewar Ram was challaned under Section 302/34 and 120-B IPC and third person namely Durga Ram was declared as absconding. Later on Durga Ram was arrested and he was challaned under Sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC. Accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas was charged under Sections 302, 4. 120-B IPC and 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. Accused Durga Ram was charged under Sections 120-B and 302 in alternative 302/34 IPC and accused Ghewar Ram was charged under Section 120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 33 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Three witnesses were examined in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Durga Ram and Ghewar Ram, whereas, accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas was convicted and sentenced as above. 3. Learned counsel Mr.Deepesh Beniwal appearing on behalf of accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas though has taken many grounds in the appeal, but at the Bar, he has submitted that accused appellant remained in custody for more than seven years, and his case is not covered more than offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC, because he inflicted a single gun shot injury, which resulted into the death of the deceased after six days of the incident. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5. Narain Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2006 and Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 5. It is an admitted position that from the medical evidence specially the Post Mortem Report Ex.P-26 and the Injury Report Ex.P-23, the main injury on the person of deceased Mangla Ram as per the Medical Jurist M.S. Kothari PW-19 was cut wound of 5.5 cm x 5 cm x plural cavity deep on the lower part of the right chest and on the upper part of the leg and in consequence of this, there were mutiple wounds on account of abrasions and bruises on the right arm. According to him, these injuries were caused by fire arm. He advised X-ray of both these injuries. On the multiple wounds on the arm, there was no bonny injury as per the Radiological Report Ex.P.24, and fracture of 10th rib was found on the right side of the chest vide Radiological Report Ex.P.25. As a result of these injuries caused on 16.6.2001, deceased Mangla Ram died on 22.6.2001. 6. 6. The main eye witness according to the FIR is Ram Chandra, who has been examined as PW-10. He has stated in his examination in chief that when he was going with Mangla Ram Sarpanch on the motorcycle, then, he saw Ghewar Ram, accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas, Durga Ram and Mangi Lal two kilometers before Kuchera near Suzuki motorcycle and another Rajdoot motorcycle, and on seeing them on motorcycle, they all four entered in the dhani of Sangramji. About ten kilometers away from Kuchera, Suzuki motorcycle came. The driver of which was Mangi Lal and accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas was sitting on the rear side, who fired on them, which collided on the right thigh of the Sarpanch. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and lodged the report. Though, Mangi Lal has been left by the police and challan was filed against accused Durga Ram and Ghewar Ram, but we are not concerned with regard to the conspiracy of Durga Ram and Ghewar Ram in the present case, as they have been acquitted by the learned trial court and no appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of their acquittal. We are only confined with the role of accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas. 7. 7. In addition to the oral testimony of eye witness Ram Chandra, there is a dying declaration of deceased Mangla Ram Ex.P.20 recorded on the very day of the incident i.e. on 16.6.2001. In which, he has stated that accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas came on the motorcycle from his back side and fired on him. Someone else was driving the motorcycle. He felt unconscious till he reached Kuchera. This evidence clearly indicates that gun shot injury was inflicted by accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas and the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the value of this dying declaration in its judgment. Further upon the information of accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P.39 and Ex.P.40 and in pursuance to this, desi pistol vide Ex.P.34 and empty bag of 12 bore vide Ex.P.36 kartoos were recovered, which has been proved by Budha Ram PW-29, Ghewar Ram PW-30 and Banwari Lal PW-21. Though these three witnesses of recovery are police constables, but in view of the fact that recovery was made from the forest, it was not possible for the Police Officer to bring the independent witnesses. As per the F.S.L. Report 8. Ex.P.66, blood on the pallets and dat was found of human origin. 8. Of-course, learned trial court has held that prosecution has not been able to establish the motive, but in view of the fact that deceased and the accused were of the same area and deceased was the Sarpanch, the possibility of political rivalry cannot be ruled out. Even in the absence of any motive, whether the act of accused falls under the category of culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder, intention and knowledge are the basic elements. Intention to cause death, being first part, is gathered from the nature of bodily injury. If such bodily injury is likely to cause death, then it amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, whereas, if the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death as the offender knows that it may cause death or that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, than it amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder. Second part is about knowledge. If the knowledge is that, act is likely to cause death, then it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and if the knowledge is 9. coupled with an act so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as mentioned above, then this 4th category of Section 300 brings the case under caption of culpable homicide amounting to murder. That part, if the case falls under any of the exception of Section 300, then also it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are various judicial pronouncements on the applicability of Section 299 and Section 300 IPC. There is no straight jacket formula for applicability of Sections, but the Court has to minutely scrutinized the evidence on record as to whether it is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder in the light of incriminating circumstances of each case. 9. In the present case, two persons were riding on the motorcycle namely Mangla Ram on the back side and Ram Chandra was driving the motorcycle, and they were followed by two persons on the motorcycle including accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas, who fired on them, which collided on the lower side of the right chest of 10. Mangla Ram, and after six days of the incident, he died. This gun shot injury was of-course of such a nature as opined by the doctor was likely to cause death and was fired with an intention, but the offender was not knowing that as to whom he is causing harm out of the two on the motorcycle. In the absence of it and also of the fact that there was only one gun shot injury, it is a case of intentional causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death, which covers under clause (b) of Section 299 IPC punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. It is not a case of intentional act of causing bodily injury with knowledge of likely death but an intentional act of causing death by inflicting injury with fire arm. Had it been a simple case of knowledge without there being intention, then the case would have fall under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 10. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In Narain Singh's case (supra), the plea of right of private defence was taken. It was a case of gun shot injury, where accused tried to sow seeds in the field of the deceased and on objection, accused fired at him. There 11. was a direct nexus of the act with the motive, whereas, in the present case, accused on seeing the deceased going on the motorcycle followed him and fired, which is an intentional act to bring the case under Section 304 Part-I IPC. In Daya Nand's case (supra), while elaborately discussing the scope of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and upon relying an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1958 SC 465, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death who inflicted the bodily injury. In the said case, the degree of probability of death which determines whether the culpable homicide is the gravest, medium or the lowest was discussed by distinguishing the bodily injury as is likely to cause death or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereafter, the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC. Whereas, in the present case, doctor has not opined in the Post Mortem Report Ex.P-26 that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death because deceased Mangla Ram died after six days of the incident in the hospital and he was conscious and on the contrary, the 12. cause of death has been opined as shock and hemorrhage due to injury on the right chest and abdomen. 11. Thus, from the above discussion, it can safely be said that the present case falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. So far as offences under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act are concerned, they have rightly been held to be proved on account of the fact that accused has not been able to establish that he was having valid licence of the recovered pistol, which he used in the commission of the crime. 12. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While altering the conviction and sentence of accused appellant Ram Kailash @ Ram Vilas from offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, he is sentenced for a period of eight years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. However, the conviction and sentences under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act are maintained. The fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed under Section 304 Part-I IPC shall be paid to the 13. legal heirs of deceased Mangla Ram. However, the fine imposed under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act for a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively shall be deposited in the State fund. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M. KAPADIA), J. ms rathore