Case: Kanhiyalal and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

Gokul (accused 3) and his three sons Kanhiyalal (accused 1), Geelaram (accused 2) and Ratanlal (accused 4) were charged for the murder of Chhotu and for causing injuries to his brother Bhura and to other family members. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer convicted accused 1 and 2 under Section 302, IPC and Section 302/34, IPC for causing the death of Chhotu. Accused 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 325, IPC and Section 325/34, IPC for causing injuries to Chhotu, Bhura and others, Accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused 3 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 325, IPC. Accused 4 being under 21 years of age was given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to be released on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000 to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years2. The accused feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence preferred an appeal to the High court of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction of accused 1 and 2 under Section 302/34, IPC was not maintainable and they could properly be convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, IPC. Their substantive conviction under Section 302, IPC was held to be wholly unsustainable. So far as accused 3 and 4 are concerned, their conviction under Section 325/34, IPC was sustained, Accused 1 and 2 were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for the months. It appears that in the meantime accused 3 passed away. The remaining three accused 1, 2, and 4 have approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India on special leave. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the facts and circumstances of the case show that the accused persons had caused injuries to Chhotu, Bhura an others in exercise of their right of private defence and therefore their conviction were thoroughly unsustainable. In order to appreciate this contention we may notice the relevant facts4. After the accused left the place of occurrence, the womenfolk raised an alarm which attracted the attention of PW 8 Kana. The injured were put in his bullock cart. PW 3 Champa, PW 4 Hagami and PW 19 Lad also went along with the injured in the bullock cart. When the bullock cart carrying the injured was proceeding in the direction of Shafakhana (dispensary), accused 1 and 2 stood in the way and asked PW 8 to leave the victims to their fate. On PW 8 refusing they pelted stones at him, whereupon he ran away. The womenfolk saw PW 20 Govindram in his field and requested him to help them carry the injured to the dispensary for treatment. PW 20 obliged and drove the bullock cart to the dispensary. Unfortunately the medical Officer was not available and the nurse on duty advised them to take the injured to the Kekri Hospital. A motor car was hired and the injured were brought to the Kekri Hospital. The medical officer on seeing the condition of Chhotu advised that he may be taken to the Civil Hospital, Ajmer. The injured Bhura was, however, admitted to the Kekri Hospital for treatment, Chhotu, while on his way to Ajmer, passed away. PW 20 Govindram who had parted company after sending the injured in a motor vehicle, returned to the village with the bullock cart and then went to Kekri Hospital by the next bus. After visiting the hospital, on the request of PW 2 Bhura, he went to Sawar Police Station and lodged a report, Ex.. On the basis of the said report an offence was registered under Section 307, IPC which was later converted to Section 302, IPC on the death of Chhotu. This in brief is the prosecution case

Court's reasoning:
We think that this conclusion is correct. Immediately after the incident all the members of the complainants party except PW 1 Prem who was a minor had accompanied the injured Chhotu and Bhura in the bullock cart. On reaching the dispensary it was realised that since the medical officer was not available it was necessary to remove the injured to Kekri Hospital. PW 20 returned with the bullock car to the village and thereafter went to Kekri Hospital by bus. It was there that PW 2 Bhura requested him to him inform police. PW 20 thereafter went to the police station and lodged the complaint. In these circumstances we do not think that the delay is unexplained. We, therefore, see no substance in this contentionWe have carefully read the prosecution evidence and we do not think that the prosecution witnesses are guilty of suppression of facts