MOHAR SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASHTAN
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000758-000758 / 2015
Diary number: 42640 / 2014
Advocates: SUSHIL BALWADA Vs
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2015 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4044 of 2015)
(Crl. M.P. No. 4741/2015)
Mohar Singh … Appellant
Versus State of Rajasthan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order
dated 25.02.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144 of
1998 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal and
Page 2
Page 2 of 8
affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by Additional
Sessions Judge, Karauli, under Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code (IPC) in Sessions case No. 26 of 1986.
2. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
papers on record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.1986, Rekh
Singh (PW-1) was going to get his tubewell engine repaired. He
was stopped by appellant Mohar Singh and three others.
While other three caught hold of Rekh Singh, appellant gave
lathi blows on his neck, back and legs, due to which the
injured (Rekh Singh) fell down. Witnesses Man Singh (PW-2),
Gyan Singh (PW-3), and Ram Roop (PW-4) witnessed the
incident. They took the injured to hospital where Dr. Nand Lal
Sharma (PW-5) recorded injuries suffered by Rekh Singh in
Ex. P-7, and also advised X-ray. After X-ray of injury on head,
suffered by the injured, fracture was detected and
supplementary report Ex. P-5 was prepared. PW-7 Manvendra
Singh, S.H.O., Karauli, received information from aforesaid
hospital, and set the police machinery into action.
Sub-inspector, Bharat Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and
Page 3
Page 3 of 8
recorded “Parcha Bayan” - Ex. P-1. On the basis of said
memorandum, First Information Report No. 70/86 was
registered at the Police Station. S.H.O, Manvendra Singh
(PW-7) investigated the Crime, and after interrogating the
witnesses, and inspection of site, filed charge-sheet against
appellant Mohar Singh and three others, namely, Ram Kishan
and his sons Meetha Lal and Bheem Singh, for their trial in
respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC.
4. The concerned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge-sheet,
after giving necessary copies, appears to have committed the
case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court, after
hearing the parties, framed charge in respect of offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC against all the four
accused, including the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1
Rekh Singh (injured), PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh,
PW-4 Ram Roop (all the three are witnesses), PW-5 Dr. Nand
Lal Sharma (who medically examined the injured), PW-6
Page 4
Page 4 of 8
Bharat Singh, and PW-7 S.H.O. Manvendra Singh
(Investigating Officer).
5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in
reply to which they pleaded that evidence against them was
false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced.
6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that
prosecution could successfully prove charge of offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC only against Mohar Singh,
and involvement of other three others, namely, Ram Kishan
(Father of Mohar Singh) and Meetha Lal and Bheem Singh
(both brothers of Mohar Singh) was doubtful. Accordingly, the
trial court convicted Mohar Singh, and after hearing of
sentence, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period
of five years and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 IPC, and
further directed that in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo additional sentence of imprisonment for a period of
six months. 7. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.04.1988
passed in Sessions case No. 26 of 1986 by Additional Sessions
Page 5
Page 5 of 8
Judge, Karauli, the convict filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144
of 1986. However, the High Court, after hearing the parties,
found no force in the appeal, and dismissed the same. Hence
this appeal, through Special Leave.
8. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to
mention the eight injuries suffered by Rekh Singh which were
recorded by Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (PW-5) in his report Ex.P-6,
which are reproduced below:- “(a) Red blue mark10 x 8 cm on left temoral region
of head and on parietal region of skull, in which there was lot of swelling and left eye became totally blue. This injury was long in nature.
(b) Red oblique bluish mark 7 x 3 cm., which was on right side of neck, swelling was in it.
(c) Oblique red blue mark 7 x 2 cm on upper part of left thigh.
(d) Red blue mark 12 x 3 cm on left lower part of chest.
(e) Cut wound 2 x 0.5 cm, which was skin deep, on the middle part of left leg, where from blood was oozing out.
(f) Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on left shoulder.
(g) Red abrasion mark 2 x 1 cm also on left elbow.
(h) Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on right hand.”
Page 6
Page 6 of 8
The medical officer has further proved supplementary
report Ex.P-5 and also the X-ray plates Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4,
and opined that there was fracture corresponding to injury
No.1. In his opinion the injuries were caused by hard blunt
object like lathi. However, in the cross-examination said
witness has stated that the injury could have been caused by
fall.
9. The statement of the PW-1 Rekh Singh injured, is not
only natural and trustworthy, but also corroborated by
medical evidence on record. Apart from this, eye witnesses
PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh and PW-4 Ram Roop have
further corroborated the incident. Injury on the head is so
grievous that the medical officer has opined, it could have
caused death. As such, we do not find any illegality
committed by the courts below regarding conviction of Mohar
Singh (appellant) in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us
that after the incident, the injured has entered into
compromise, and he does not want to prosecute the appellant.
Page 7
Page 7 of 8
In this connection, application for permission to file additional
document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been moved before us,
enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the
villagers. Since the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC
is non-compoundable offence, as such, we reject the
compromise filed by the appellant. Though the victim also
appeared in person before us to corroborate that now he is no
more interested to prosecute the appellant, but considering
the nature of injuries and the nature of offence, we are not
inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial
court against the appellant, and affirmed by the High Court.
However, taking note of above fact, we think it just to reduce
the period of sentence of imprisonment to three years without
interfering with the sentence of fine. This reduction in
sentence shall not be treated precedent for sentencing in
respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
11. Accordingly, conviction is not interfered with but the
sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The appeal stands disposed of. The appellant shall surrender
Page 8
Page 8 of 8
before the court concerned to serve out the remaining
unserved part of sentence, as modified by this Court.
……………….....…………J. [Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J. New Delhi; [Prafulla C. Pant] May 11, 2015.