Bastiram vs State Of Rajasthan

The facts:

3. On 20th May, 1995 at about 7.15 p.m. Tara Chand, Station House Officer in Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner in Rajasthan received a cryptic telephonic message. The message was from an unknown person and was to the effect that in Ward No.2 in village Nokha, Ram Pratap and Sohan Lal (PW-4) who are real brothers were involved in a fight. Several others had joined in and firearms, lathis, barchis and other weapons were used in the fight. It was also informed that two persons had died in the incident.

4. Tara Chand reduced the information in writing in a roznamcha and then reached the place of occurrence along with some other police officers.

5. At the place of occurrence, Sohan Lal gave a parcha bayan to Tara Chand at about 8.30 p.m. Sohan Lal stated that his brother Genaram (PW-1) had installed a dharam kanta or a weighbridge on Roda Road and about five years later Ram Pratap also installed a weighbridge on the same road. As a result of the installation of the second weighbridge, the relationship between Genaram and Ram Pratap was not cordial.

6. Sohan Lal further stated that sometime between 6.30 p.m. and 6.45 p.m., he and Om Prakash (PW-3 – son of Genaram) were sitting in a temple near his (Sohan Lal’s) house. At that time his two sons, namely, Ram Narain (hereafter referred to as deceased Ram Narain) and Mohanlal (hereafter referred to as deceased Mohanlal) came out of his house and went towards Ram Pratap’s house. When they were near his house, they were attacked by the four appellants, that is, Bastiram, Mohan Lal, Ramnarayan and Banwari. These four appellants were armed with pistols. Also participating in the attack were Mangilal, Ramjus, Hariram, Ram Pratap, Bhagwanaram and Maniram who were armed with either a barchi or a jayee or a sela.

12. On these broad facts the four appellants and the other five persons from Ram Pratap’s group were tried for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bikaner delivered his judgment in Sessions Case No.24/2001 on 7th September, 2001 in which he held the appellants guilty, inter alia, of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine. They were also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine. The remaining accused were acquitted.

20. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2001 in the Rajasthan High Court while the State of Rajasthan preferred Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2002 against the acquittal of the other five accused.

30. On the basis of the statements made by the defence witnesses it is not possible to accurately state when appellant Bastiram left Bikaner, but he was certainly there till about 5.00 or 5.15 p.m. if not a little later. Information about the incident at Nokha was received by Tara Chand in Police Station Nokha at about 7.15 p.m. meaning thereby that the incident had taken place a short while before that. As per the parcha bayan given by Sohan Lal the incident took place between 6.30 and 6.45 p.m. There is therefore a window of about one hour and thirty or forty-five minutes between the time of appellant Bastiram’s departure from Bikaner and his arrival at Nokha. It is, therefore, quite possible, given the flexibility of time and a lack of exactitude that appellant Bastiram was present when the incident took place and as testified by the eye witnesses.

Other appellants:

37. The question before us, therefore, is whether the “medical evidence” should be believed or whether the testimony of the eye witnesses should be preferred. There is no doubt that ocular evidence should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical evidence.[3] This principle has more recently been accepted in Gangabhavani v. Rajapati Venkat Reddy.[4]

38. The expression “medical evidence” compendiously refers to the facts stated by the doctor either in the injury report or in the post mortem report or during his oral testimony plus the opinion expressed by the doctor on the basis of the facts stated. For example, an injury on the skull or the leg is a fact recorded by the doctor. Whether the injury caused the death of the person is the opinion of the doctor. As noted in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath[5] on the same set of facts, two doctors may have a different opinion. Therefore, the opinion of a particular doctor is not final or sacrosanct.

43. However, this has no impact on our final conclusion since we are in the agreement with the Trial Court and the High Court that the appellants had the common intention of causing the death of deceased Rameshwarlal, deceased Ram Narain, deceased Mohanlal and injured Rajaram. That Rajaram survived the injuries is fortuitous. We are also in agreement with both the Courts that the appellants were armed with pistols and that they had fired at their victims with the intention of killing them. We have not been shown anything that would suggest the contrary.

Conclusion:

44. We uphold the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court and confirm the conviction and sentence on the appellants. There is no merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.

……………………………….J (Ranjana Prakash Desai) .……………………………….J (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi;

WITH APPEAL (CRL) NO......./2014 @ SLP(Crl) NO. 5240 of 2004 APPEAL(CRL) NO. 759 of 2004 Date: 13/02/2014 These matters were called on for judgment today.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and His Lordship.

Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No.5240 of 2004.

The appeals are dismissed, in terms of the signed judgment.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 and Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v.