REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.316 OF 2005

State of Rajasthan …Appellant

Versus

Mohan Lal & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. This appeal by special leave assails the correctness of  

the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2003 passed  

by the High Court  of  Judicature for  Rajasthan at  Jodhpur  

whereby  Criminal  Appeal  No.509  of  2001  filed  by  the  

respondents  against  their  conviction  and  sentence  for  

offences  punishable  under  sections  148,  302/149,  323,  

324/149 and 325 of the IPC has been partly allowed and  

while  setting  aside  the  conviction  and  sentence  of  the  

1

respondents  under  Section  302/149,  affirmed  their  

conviction for the remaining offences with the direction that  

the period already undergone by them shall suffice.

 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the charge-sheet  

against the respondents, their trial and conviction as also  

the filing of the appeal before the High Court have been set  

out  at  considerable  length  in  the  impugned  judgment  

passed by the High Court.  We need not therefore re-count  

the  same  over  again  except  to  the  extent  the  same  is  

absolutely  necessary  to  understand  the  genesis  of  the  

prosecution case and the submissions made before us at  

the bar.   Suffice it  to say that Shambhu Lal  (PW-1),  Piru  

(PW-7) and Lalu (deceased) all real brothers and residents  

of village Sewana in the State of Rajasthan were on their  

way back from the house of one Arjunsha Ghanava on 23 rd  

January, 2000 at about 9.10 p.m., when they were attacked  

by the respondents Mohan Lal, Nathu, Suraj Mal, Laxman,  

Kalu and Balu Ram, also residents of village Sewana.   The  

accused  were,  according  to  the  prosecution,  armed  with  

lathis,  and  dhariyas  (Scythes)  which  they  used  freely  to  

cause injuries to the deceased and Shambu Lal (PW-1). The  

2

prosecution case is that Piru (PW-7) somehow managed to  

escape from the clutches of the respondents and rushed to  

the Police Station to lodge an oral  report at about 11.30  

p.m., on the basis whereof the police registered a case for  

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323  

and 341 of the IPC, and hurried to the place of occurrence  

to  take  the  injured  Shambhu  and  Lalu  to  Pratapgarh  

Hospital  where  Lalu  succumbed  to  his  injuries  on  24th  

January, 2000 at about 6.30 a.m.   

A charge under Section 302 IPC was accordingly added  

by the police who completed the investigation and filed a  

challan  before  the  jurisdictional  Judicial  Magistrate.   The  

respondents were committed to face trial to the Sessions  

Judge at Pratapgarh who made over the case to Additional  

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) before whom the respondents  

pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.   

In  support  of  its  case,  the prosecution examined as  

many as 17 witnesses including the Doctor who conducted  

the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The accused  

examined Vajeram in defence apart from getting Exh.D-1 to  

D-6 marked at the trial.   

3

3. The Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that  

the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case.  All the  

accused-respondents  were  sentenced  to  undergo  life  

imprisonment for offences of murder of deceased Lalu.  In  

addition they were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment  

that ranged between one year to three years for offences  

punishable under Sections 323, 324 ad 325 of the IPC.  A  

fine of Rs.1500/- in total and a sentence in default was also  

imposed upon them.   

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the  

Sessions  Judge,  the  appellants  preferred  Criminal  Appeal  

No.509 of 2001 before the High Court which has been partly  

allowed  by  the  High  Court  by  the  judgment  and  order  

impugned  in  this  appeal.   The  High  Court  upon  a  fresh  

appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and  

the defence came to the conclusion that  the former  had  

failed to establish the charge under Section 302 read with  

Section 149 of the IPC framed against the respondents.  The  

High Court observed:  

“In  the  instant  case  from  the  deposition  of   Dr.Mathur, it is more than clear that all the injuries   found on the persons of the deceased were simple   in  nature.   Three  injuries  were  found by pointed   object  and  other  were  abrasions.   It  is  not  in   

4

dispute that the three injuries found on the person  of  Piru  were  all  simple  in  nature  and  by  blunt   object.   The  injured  Shambhu  Lal  received  two   grievous injuries on left wrist and right leg by blunt   object and one simple injury on left little finger by   sharp object.”

5. The High Court has on the above basis acquitted the  

respondents  of  the  charge  of  murder  but  upheld  their  

conviction for the remaining offences. On the question of  

sentence, the High Court found that the respondents have  

been in  custody with  effect  from 24th January,  2000 and  

accordingly  sentenced  them  to  the  period  already  

undergone.  The High Court observed:

“Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.  The  appellants are acquitted of the charge punishable   under  Section  302/149  of  the  I.P.C.   Regarding   other offences the findings of guilt arrived at by the   learned  trial  Court  is  maintained.  So  far  as  the  question of sentence is concerned, the Appellants   are in custody w.e.f. 24.1.2000.  In the totality of   circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that  in  the   circumstances  of  the  case  a  sentence  of   imprisonment already undergone would meet the  ends  of  justice.   Consequently,  the  sentence   awarded to the appellants is modified to the extent   that  they  are  awarded  the  sentence  already  undergone by them.  The judgment of the learned   Court shall stand modified accordingly.  The appeal   is disposed of in the manner indicated above.  The  appellants  shall  be  released  forthwith,  if  not  needed in connection with any other case.”   

5

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some  

length and perused the record.  The High Court was, in our  

opinion,  justified in  holding  that  the  prosecution had not  

been  able  to  establish  the  charge  of  murder  beyond  a  

reasonable doubt.  The High Court  has correctly  observed  

that the deposition of Dr. Narendra Swarup Mathur (PW-13)  

had clearly established that the injuries sustained by the  

deceased were all simple in nature inflicted upon non-vital  

parts of the body.  The doctor had also clearly admitted in  

cross-examination that no finding was recorded in the post-  

mortem report Exh.P-21 that the injuries in question were  

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  

There was, in that view of the matter and in the absence of  

any other evidence to support the charge levelled against  

the respondents, no reason to find them guilty of murder.   

7. It is noteworthy that the Trial court had placed heavy  

reliance upon the presence of blood clots below the scalp  

and inside the middle portion of the skull of the deceased to  

come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  death  may  have  been  

caused by the injuries on the head which is a vital part of  

the body. The Trial Court obviously failed to note that there  

was no external injury reported by the doctor on any part of  

6

the head. If the respondents really intended to commit the  

murder  of  the  deceased  and  if  they  were  armed  with  

weapons like Lathis and Dhariyas of which the latter is a  

sharp-edged weapon, it is difficult to appreciate why they  

would not  have attacked any vital  part  of  his  body.  The  

absence of any injury on any vital part and particularly the  

absence of external injury on the skull clearly show that the  

accused  had  not  intended  to  cause  the  death  of  the  

deceased  nor  caused  any  bodily  injury  as  was  likely  to  

cause death.  

8. It  is  also  difficult  to  attribute any  knowledge to  the  

respondents that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to  

cause death, the same being simple in nature.  Even the  

doctor who conducted the post-mortem did not certify the  

injuries  to  be  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  the  ordinary  

course.  Such being the state of evidence, the High Court  

was,  in  our  view,  justified  in  allowing  the  appeal  of  the  

respondents in part and acquitting them of the charge of  

the  murder  while  maintaining  their  conviction  for  the  

remaining offences with which they were charged.  Even on  

the question of  sentence,  we do not  see any compelling  

reason to interfere. The incident in question is more than 12  

7

years  old.  The  respondents  have  already  suffered  

incarceration  for  four  years  which  should  suffice  having  

regard  to  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the  

incident in question appears to have taken place.   

9. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

……………………….……..……J.               (T.S. THAKUR)

………………………….…..……J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi March 23, 2012

8