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.