http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  85 of 1998

PETITIONER: State of  Rajasthan                                              

RESPONDENT: Maharaj Singh & Anr.                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2004

BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G.  BALAKRISHNAN, J.

       This appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of  the accused respondents by the High Court.   Originally there were three   accused,  but the first accused Gujarmal died during the pendency  of  the  appeal.  These accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Karoli, Rajasthan for  the offence of murder punishable under Section 302  read with Section 34 IPC.    The Sessions Judge found them guilty of offences punishable under Section 304  Part I read with Section 34 IPC  and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment  for a period of 10 years.   Aggrieved by the same,  they preferred an appeal  before the High Court and  the learned Single Judge held that  they were not  guilty of any offence.   Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge,  the present appeal is preferred  by the State of  Rajasthan.

       The prosecution case is  that on 5.10.1992 at about 8’ o clock in the  morning, deceased Ram Swaroop went  to the house of the first accused  Gujarmal and  told him that  his camel  had been causing damage to the  cultivation of the deceased and requested  Gujarmal not to allow the camel to  stray into his field.    Accused Gujarmal got annoyed  with the deceased over this  complaint.   Further  case of the prosecution is that Gujarmal along with his sons   Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh attacked Ram Swaroop with ’lathis’ and  beat  him on his head and other parts of the body.    As a result, Ram Swaroop fell  unconscious.     Ram Swaroop’s wife  and   the other  eye witnesses  took him to  Karoli  Hospital.    As his condition was serious, Ram Swaroop was referred to  Govt.  Hospital at Jaipur.  But on the way to the hospital, Ram Swaroop died.

       While Ram Swaroop was in Karoli Hospital, a head constable visited the  hospital on receiving intimation from the doctor, but he could not take any  statement from Ram Swaroop.   On 7.10.1992, PW-2 Rajpal gave Exh. P-1  written complaint before the Masalpur  Police Station and on that basis the case  was registered and the investigation started.    The dead body of Ram Swaroop  was subjected to post-mortem examination.  There were five injuries  and all the  injuries were caused on his head.   There was a fracture of the skull and the  doctor was of the opinion that  the  death  was due to the injuries on the head  which resulted in clotting of blood.   PW-1 to PW-5 were the  eye witnesses.    PW-1 is the wife of the deceased Ram Swaroop.   She deposed that on the day  of the incident, her husband Ram Swaroop  had gone to the house of  Gujarmal    and she came to  know that Gujarmal and his sons had  beaten up her husband   and he was admitted in the hospital.    PW-2 Rajpal is also an eye witness.     He  deposed that on the date of the incident, Ram Swaroop went to the house of  Gujarmal and told him that his camel had been causing damage to his cultivation.    Gujarmal,  Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh had ’lathis’ with them.   PW-2  deposed that Maharaj Singh hit Ram  Swaroop on his head near the left eye, as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

a result of which  Ram  Swaroop fell on the ground.   Then, Gujarmal struck   another blow of ’lathi’ on Ram Swaroop.  Then PW-1 and others  took the injured  to his  house.   PW-3 deposed that he  had seen a quarrel taking place between  deceased Ram Swaroop and  Gujarmal   and that he also saw accused Maharaj  Singh and Bachan Singh beating up Gujarmal  with lathis’ on his  head.  PW-4  and PW-5 also gave a similar version of the incident.    All these witnesses are  residing in the  neighbourhood and there is no reason to disbelieve these  witnesses.  The  fact  that deceased Ram Swaroop was brutally attacked  by  these accused persons is  proved satisfactorily.   However, the learned Single  Judge of the High Court declined to  accept the prosecution version merely on  the ground that there was a delay in lodging the  F.I. statement before the police.   The learned Single Judge was of the view that the incident happened on  5.10.1992 between 7 A.M.  and  8 A.M. and the report   was  given to the police    at 10.30 A.M. on 7.10.1992 and that this delay was  not satisfactorily explained.    This   finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged  by the  appellant-State.

       The finding of the learned Single Judge that the delay in lodging the F.I.   statement is not explained is  incorrect.   On the date of the incident, deceased  Ram Swaroop was taken to Karoli  Hospital and he was admitted there.     PW-6,  Dr. M.L. Kawant, attached to the hospital at Karoli  deposed  that he  sent Exh.  P-11 report to the police station and the S.H.O. came to the hospital,   but Ram  Swaroop  was not in a  fit  condition  to  make any statement.    On the back of  the Exh.  P-11 report, the S.H.O. made an entry to the effect that he visited the  hospital and made Exh. P-13 report  wherein PW-6 noted that the  patient was  not fit for  making any statement.    Strangely  enough, the police did not take   any action thereafter and they swung into action  only  when Exh. P-1 report was  made by PW-2 on 7.10.1992 at 10.30 A.M.   The delay in registering the case  was due to the ignorance and negligence on the part of the police.  The police  officer who visited the hospital at Karoli could have registered the case based on  the information that may be volunteered by any of the bystanders to the patient.     The delay in lodging the report before the police has not caused any serious  prejudice to the accused nor did it  cast any doubt on the prosecution case.     The  fact that the incident happened on 5.10.92 and Ram Swaroop sustained  fatal injuries and was admitted  in the hospital and as to how the incident  happened,  is spoken  by a series of witnesses.    Delay in lodging the F.I.R.  would be material when there is  a doubt regarding the prosecution  case.   There  is no allegation that the accused were  roped in and a false case was foisted  upon them.   It is also material to point out that the defence of the accused was  that deceased Ram Swaroop sustained injuries as he was   attacked by a mad  camel.   No evidence was let in  to substantiate this contention.    No suggestions  were put to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination or PW-6 who  first medically examined deceased Ram Swaroop   PW-6 deposed that injures  were caused on the head of the deceased  by hitting.  The nature of injuries   would   also show that they were caused by beating with ’lathis’

       There is overwhelming evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove  the case against the accused respondents, Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh.   They were found guilty of the offence punishable  under Section 304 Part I read  with Section 34 IPC.   Learned Sessions Judge was  perfectly justified in finding  them guilty of the  offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.    

       The incident happened in 1992.   Several years have lapsed since these  respondents  were acquitted  by the High Court.    We find it  just and proper to  reduce their sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five years each.     In the   result,  we  allow this appeal filed by the State and confirm the conviction of these  respondents for the offences punishable under Section  304  Part I read with  Section 34 IPC.   However, the sentence of 10 years’   R.I. is reduced to a period  of 5 years’  R.I.   on each of these two  respondents-accused.   They are entitled  to  set off the period    already undergone by them as undertrial prisoners and the  period undergone  after conviction    The respondents  shall surrender before the  Court of  the Special Judge, Dacoit Affected Area & Additional Distt. & Sessions  Judge, Karoli, within a period of two weeks,  failing which the  said court shall  take  appropriate steps to  apprehend them.   Personal bonds furnished by the  accused respondents before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall stand  revoked.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3