At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
For the Appellants: Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Chaudhary, Counsel. For the Respondents: N.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor.
Published In:- Published In 2017 (2) WLC 101, 2017 (2) RAJCriC 773
Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants Jai Singh, Guman Singh and Sitaram sons of Mangla @ Mangal Singh by caste Rawat under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer vide judgment dated 04.09.2009 in Sessions Case No. 76/2008.
2. After conviction the accused-appellants were sentenced as follows:-
Appellant No. 1 Jai Singh:
For offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
Appellant No. 2 Guman Singh and appellant No. 3 Sitaram:
3. For offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. sentenced to life imprisonment each with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that one Nanu son of Hajari submitted a written report Ex.P-8 at JLN Hospital, Ajmer to S.H.O. Police Station, Pushkar on 07.05.2008 at 12.15 A.M. about the incident alleged to have taken place on 06.05.2008 at 21.00 hours. It was alleged in the report that on 06.05.2008 he was returning from his field and at about 9:00 P.M. he reached near the shop of Sukha and saw that Guman, Jai Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram sons of Mangla by caste Rawat were giving beatings with fists and kicks to his nephew-Mukesh. Jai Singh took out a knife from his pocket, Guman Singh caught hold one hand of Mukesh and second hand was caught hold by Sitaram. Gangaram caught hold the neck and Jai Singh started inflicting knife blows on stomach, chest and other parts of the body of Mukesh. Complainant, Durga and Rupa tried to intervene and at that time villagers also came but these persons continued to inflict knife injuries to his nephew and when his nephew fell down on the earth fully blooded then treating him dead, these persons run away. Complainant, Ratan son of Dulla, Amarchand son of Rama and Mahendra-brother of Mukesh took Mukesh in the tractor of Chaudhary Sahib to JLN Hospital, Ajmer for treatment. During treatment, Mukesh expired. It was alleged that 4-5 days ago, there was hot discussion between Mukesh and Mangla son of Kana on the point of filling air in the tractor and on account of this, these persons gave beating to Mukesh and caused his murder etc.
5. On receipt of above report, an F.I.R. (Ex.P-53) was registered at Police Station, Pushkar District Ajmer being F.I.R. No. 80/2008 for commission of offence under Section 302, 34 of I.P.C. and investigation commenced.
6. During the course of investigation, Panchayatnama was prepared, clothes worn by deceased-Muke
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
h were seized, memo of handing over dead body was prepared, samples of blood stained and control soil were taken from the place of occurrence, site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., accused-persons were arrested, blood stained clothes were seized from accused-Jai Singh, certification memos of place of occurrence were prepared at the instance of accused-persons in consequence of information's given by them under Section 27 of Evidence Act, blood stained-Shirt of accused- Guman Singh was seized from him at his instance, knife used in commission of the crime was seized from accused-Jai Singh, autopsy of the corpse of Mukesh was performed, photography of place of occurrence was made, recovered articles were sent to FSL, Bed Head Ticket of deceased-Mukesh was obtained and after usual investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants and one Gangaram Singh (juvenile) for offence under Section 302, 323 and 34 of IPC. Challan for offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act was also filed against the appellant-Jai Singh along with other offences. Police filed the charge-sheet against the Gangaram (juvenile) before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer and against the accused-appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar (Ajmer). The offences being triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who in turn transferred it to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer for trial, where it was registered as Sessions Case NO. 76/2008.7. Learned trial Court framed charges for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of Arms Act against the accused-appellant-Jai Singh while against the accused-appellant Sitaram and Guman Singh for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.8. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P-1 of Ex.P-63 in documentary evidence to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellants. Thereafter, learned trial Court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to the accused-appellants under Section 313 of CrPC. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-appellants did not produce any witness in their defence. After completion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted Jai Singh for offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for offence Under Section 302, 302/34 and 302/34 of IPC respectively as indicated herein above.9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, they preferred the present appeal before this Court against the judgment of learned trial Court dated 04.09.2009.10. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that learned trial Court has committed serious error of law by convicting the appellants. The findings of learned trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures and therefore liable to be set aside. The story put forth by the prosecution witnesses is wholly doubtful and they came with contradictory evidence which cannot be made basis of conviction of the appellants.11. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it is clear from the evidence of complainant-Nanu that he is not an eye witness of the incident and he is merely a chance witness. He admitted before the Court that there was no crop in his field. According to written report Ex.P-8, he was returning from his field at 9:00 PM. If there was no crop in the field then there was no reason for him to go to the field and returning from there in the night. Therefore, it is clear that he has been planted later on as an eye witness. It has come in the evidence that there was storm at the time of incident. PW-3 Nanu has also stated that he took shelter at the house of Sukha on account of the storm and saw the incident from there but this material fact is found missing from written report Ex.P-8 alleged to have been submitted by PW-3 Nanu. Therefore, presence of Nanu at the place of incident, became doubtful.12. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that PW-3 Nanu in his cross-examination has stated that he did not know from where Mukesh came. He also admitted that Mukesh was dragged out from the house of Sukha and at that time 8 to 10 persons gathered there and it was a dark night and he did not know who inflicted the injury on whose person and on which part, therefore his evidence goes away.13. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution though it is alleged in the written report Ex.P-8 that villagers gathered there and tried to intervene. From report Ex.P-8 it is clear that there was no intention of the accused-persons of causing murder of the deceased-Mukesh. The allegation is that the accused-persons were giving beating with fists and kicks, whereas PW-3 Nanu came with a different theory before the Court and did not level allegation of beating with fists and kicks. Therefore PW-3 Nanu is not of sterling worth, hence no reliance can be placed on his statement.14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW-5 Sukha in front of whose house the incident has taken place, did not corroborate the statement of PW-3 Nanu therefore, presence of PW-3 at the place of incident goes away. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-3 Nanu, PW-4 Ratan Lal, PW-5 Sukha and PW-8 Durga on material points as they gave different statements regarding presence of each person and inflicting knife blows. Therefore, all the above four witnesses are not eye witnesses and are only the chance witnesses. Therefore, conviction based on evidence of these witnesses is illegal and perverse.15. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that PW- 14 Dr. Aditya M. Ratnani who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased-Mukesh, has stated that injury No. 1 is fatal and the injury was inflicted by sharp weapon having both the sides sharp but knife recovered from the accused-Jai Singh is having only one side sharp edged. Therefore it cannot be said that the knife recovered from appellant-Jai Singh was used in commission of the crime and this belied the whole prosecution case.16. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that incident is alleged to have taken place in the night at about 9:00 P.M. in front of the house of PW-5 Sukha. Presence of all the four brothers at that time at the place of incident is doubtful when there was a storm. Thus, it appears that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the prosecution case, there was no eye witness of the incident and it was a murder by anonymous person but on account of enmity between the parties, all the four brothers have been implicated in the case. Learned Senior Counsel prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit the appellants of the charge.17. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants on basis of cogent and reliable evidence, which proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.18. We have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.19. In cross-examination, PW-3 Nanu stated that he went to his field to collect prickles. The witness denied the suggestion that he returned from the field before dark. Thus, the argument of learned Senior Counsel for appellants that there was no reason to go to the field when there was no crop and the witness was planted later on, can not be accepted.20. It is argued that the fact of storm and PW-3 Nanu taking shelter at the house of Sukha are missing in written report EX.P-8 submitted by Nanu, renders his presence at the place of incident to be doubtful. This fact is neither material nor important for the purpose of F.I.R. because it is not necessary to incorporate each and every fact in F.I.R. as F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia. F.I.R. is nothing but an information to police machinery regarding commission of a crime. There is nothing on record to suggest that conduct of PW-3 Nanu was unnatural at any stage i.e., at the time of occurrence of incident or thereafter or during the course of investigation or during examination in Court. Therefore, argument of learned Senior Counsel of appellants in this regard can not be accepted.21. It is also argued that PW-3 Nanu has stated that it was a dark night and he did not know who inflicted the injury on whose person and on which part. In cross-examination, PW-3 Nanu has categorically stated that Sitaram and Guman caught hold the hands of Mukesh and Jai Singh inflicted blows, he saw knife in the hand of Jai Singh. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the statement of PW-3. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statement of PW-3 Nanu. Evidence given by PW-3 Nanu alone is sufficient to convict the accused-appellants without corroboration. Learned trial Court has thoroughly and carefully discussed the evidence produced by the prosecution in right perspective and came to a right conclusion in convicting the accused-appellants.22. From the conduct of the accused-appellants, circumstances and incriminating facts, it is proved that appellant-Guman Singh and Sitaram also participated in pre-arranged plan to cause death of Mukesh and in furtherance of the common intention, they caught hold the hands of the deceased-Mukesh, appellant Jai Singh took out knife from his pocket and started inflicting knife blows on chest, stomach and other parts of the body of Mukesh and when Mukesh fell down on earth fully blooded then treating him dead, accusedappellants run away. Therefore, accused-appellants- Guman Singh and Sitaram are also jointly liable with accused-appellant-Jai Singh for commission of offence of murder of Mukesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the accused-appellants are rightly convicted.23. PW-14 Dr. Aditya M. Ratnani conducted autopsy of deceased-Mukesh and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P-25. On conjoint reading of statement of PW-14 and post-mortem report Ex.P-25, it reveals that PW-14 conducted the autopsy on 07.05.2008 on police request and found three stab wounds on left side of chest, right side of stomach and over epigastrium respectively, one incised wound over left side chest wall posteriorly and one abrasion. All above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were occurred freshly before death. In the opinion of the witness, cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injury to heart ( as mentioned in injury No. 1) caused by sharp weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Therefore it is proved that death of the deceased is homicidal.24. PW-3 Nanu is star witness of the prosecution who is complainant and F.I.R. Was registered on his written report. According to this witness PW-3 Nanu, he came to the shop of Sukha from his field at about 8:00 PM. He saw that Guman, Jai Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram were beating to Mukesh. Jai Singh took out knife and inflicted on Mukesh. At that time rest of the three accused-persons caught hold Mukesh. Rupa, Durga and he himself tried to intervene and at that time villagers also came and thereafter they (accused-persons) fled away. Ratan, Amarchand, Mahendra brought Mukesh to Ajmer in the tractor of Chaudhary, where Mukesh died during treatment. Police came to hospital, where he submitted written report Ex.P-8 signed by him. The witness proved the written report Ex.P-8 by his clear, concrete and reliable evidence. From the evidence of this witness, it can safely be concluded that accused-appellant- Jai Singh took out knife and started inflicting knife blows on stomach, chest and other parts of body of Mukesh and at that time Mukesh was caught hold by Guman Singh, Sitaram-the accused-appellants and Gangaram (juvenile) against whom charge sheet was filed before Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer. From the statement of this witness, his presence at the place of occurrence was natural and has been established. In cross-examination, PW-3 Nanu stated that he himself and Durga came first on the place of occurrence, later on he said that Rupa came. Ex.P-8 written report was submitted by this witness to the police in JLN Hospital, Ajmer. This fact is proved by endorsement made thereon by Amararam, S.H.O., Police Station, Pushkar and his statement recorded in Court as PW-17.25. From the above evidence, it is proved that PW-3 Nanu did not produce written report Ex.P-8 in Police Station, moreover it is proved that he submitted written report Ex.P-8 to S.H.O., Pushkar Amararam (PW- 17) in Ajmer Hospital. In cross-examination PW-3 Nanu stated that he went to police station from hospital and submitted report. From this statement it cannot be inferred that he submitted report Ex.P-8 in police station. He clearly stated in examination-in-chief that police came to Ajmer Hospital, where he submitted written report Ex.P-8 signed by him. PW-3 Nanu is an illiterate agriculturist of rural background, thus looking to his background and attending circumstances, such minor discrepancy in his statement is possible because there is no material contradiction, exaggeration or omission in his statement. The contradiction in this regard, in the statement of PW-3 Nanu is of trivial nature. The substantial evidence has been given by PW-3 Nanu on material facts of the case and he remained consistent. No such fact came in cross-examination which may make his statement unbelievable. The evidence given by this witness is concrete, legal and reliable, therefore, evidence of this witness cannot be thrown only on the ground that he is uncle of deceased-Mukesh.26. It is pertinent to note that evidence given by PW- 3 Nanu is also corroborated by medical evidence given by PW-14 Dr. Aditya M. Ratnani and post-mortem report Ex.P-25.From any stretch of imagination, it does not reveal that PW-3 Nanu has been planted by the prosecution and he is a chance witness thus, argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in this regard, cannot be accepted.27. PW-4 Ratanlal stated that Jai Singh, Guman Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram inflicted knife blow on Mukesh. The incident took place near the house of Sukha. Thereafter, he himself and Amarchand took Mukesh to JLN Hospital, Ajmer in tractor, where he died during treatment. When he reached, they run away after beating to Mukesh. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he saw the incident. Accused-persons left the place of occurrence when he reached there.28. PW-5 Sukha was declared hostile by the trial Court on the request of Additional Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination by Additional Public Prosecutor, after hearing A to B, C to D and E to F parts of his police statement Ex.P-12, the witness stated that he gave this statement to the police and also said that he does not remember whether G to H part of Ex.P-12 was given by him or not.29. According to A to B, C to D and E to F part of police statement Ex.P-12 of PW-5 Sukha:-30. He is having tea shop. On 06.05.2008 at about 9:00 P.M. his neighbor Nanu and he himself were on hotel. At that time Mukesh came from the side of Chotti Hokara. Guman, Jai Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram also came from the side of Chhoti Hokara behind Mukesh and started beating with fists and kicks to Mukesh. At the same time Nanu and other persons came there. Guman caught hold one hand of Mukesh while second hand was caught hold by Sitaram and Gangaram caught hold the neck. Jai Singh took out a knife from his pocket and started inflicting knife blows on chest and other parts of body of Mukesh. Uncle of Mukesh, Durga and Rupa tried to intervene and at that time villagers also came and tried to intervene but these persons continued inflicting knife injuries on Mukesh and said that they will not leave him alive. When Mukesh fell down on earth fully blooded, treating him dead, these persons ran away. Nanu, Ratan, Amarchand and Mahendra-brother of Mukesh took Mukesh in the tractor of Chaudhary to JLN Hospital, Ajmer where, Mukesh died during treatment. In this way PW-5 Sukha corroborated written report Ex.P-8, statement of PW-3 Nanu and his own statement Ex.P-12 given to police under Section 161 of CrPC.31. PW-7 Amara @ Amarchand stated in Court that on 06.05.2008 at 9:00 PM. Mahendra came to him and told that Guman, Jai Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram inflicted knife blows on Mukesh and run away. Thereafter, he went to place of incident, where Mukesh was lying fully blooded on the gate of hotel situated in the house of Sukha. He himself, Ratan, Durga and Nanu took Mukesh to hospital in the tractor of Chaudhary, where Mukesh has expired. Mahendra told that accused-persons caused murder of Mukesh by inflicting knife blows.32. PW-8 Durga Singh was declared hostile by the trial Court on the request of Additional Public Prosecutor. This witness stated in Court that he went to the shop of Sukha at about 9:00 PM. Mukesh was sitting there. Jai Singh asked Mukesh to come out. Jai Singh inflicted knife blow on Mukesh. Jai Singh, Sitaram, Guman and Gangaram are four brothers who all the four inflicted knife blows and thereafter ran away. He informed to Mahendra who is brother of Mukesh that these persons inflicted knife blows. Amara, Ratan and Nanu took Mukesh to the hospital where he died. The quarrel took place on the point of filling air in the tractor. In cross-examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after hearing A to B and C to D part of his police statement Ex.P-21, the witness admitted to give this statement to police. In A to B and C to D parts of previous statement Ex.P-21, the witness stated that Guman, Jai Singh, Sitaram and Gangaram sons of Mangla started beating with fists and kicks to Mukesh near the shop of Sukha. Jai Singh took out a knife from his pocket, Guman Singh and Sitaram caught hold of Mukesh, Gangaram caught hold the neck and Jai Singh started inflicting knife blows on stomach and chest of Mukesh. In this way, PW-8 Durga Singh also corroborated the evidence given by PW-3 Nanu and written report Ex.P-8 submitted by him.33. PW-9 Mahendra is a hearsay witness who stated in Court that on 06.05.2008 Durga came to his house and told him that Mukesh is being beaten, then he went to the place of incident. Mukesh was lying there fully blooded. Mukesh told him that Sitaram, Guman and Gangaram caught hold him and Jai Singh inflicted knife blows. Sukha, Nanu, Ratan and Durga were there on the place of incident. He took Mukesh to hospital where he died.34. PW-11 Sukha Ram stated that S.H.O. Amararam gave him written report Ex.P-8 for registration of F.I.R. in Police Station, Pushkar, which he gave in police station and then F.I.R. No. 80/2008 was registered.35. PW-12 Bhanwar Singh, Head Constable in S.P. Office, stated that Jugal Kishore Constable brought articles in sealed condition from Police Station, Pushkar for FSL examination. He handed over the same to him with letter signed by S.P. to be deposited in FSL.36. PW-13 Shrawan is Incharge of Maalkhana in Police Station, Pushkar. He stated that S.H.O. Amararam deposited 4 sealed packets marked A, B, C and D on 07.05.2008, 2 sealed packets marked E and F were deposited on 11.05.2008. On 22.05.2008, Rameshwar Lal A.S.I. deposited viscera jar and small bottle of blood in sealed condition, which he deposited in Maalkhana Register in Police Station. On direction of S.H.O. Sealed packets were given to Constable Jugal Kishore to be deposited in FSL for examination with letter of S.P. Jugal Kishore deposited the same on 30.05.2008 and obtained receipt No. 4441 and 4442 and handed over to S.H.O.37. PW-16 Jugal Kishore corroborated the statement of PW-13 Shrawan Kumar and stated that he deposited sealed articles in Forensic Science Laboratory with letter of S.P. and obtained receipts No. 4441 and 4442.38. PW-15 Rajendra Prasad gave evidence regarding taking photographs on instruction of police and exhibited Ex.P-26 to Ex.P-52.39. PW-1 Prakash Chand stated that on 07.05.2008, he arrested Guman Singh vide arrest memo Ex.P-1 and Jai Singh vide arrest memo Ex.P-2. He also recovered pant and shirt of accused-Jai Singh at his instance vide Ex.P-3.40. PW-10 Ram Narayan stated that on 09.05.2008, S.H.O. Amararam arrested the accused-Sitaram vide arrest memo Ex.P-22.41. PW-2 Narayan is also a formal witness of Panchayatnama of deceased Ex.P-4, memo of dead body Ex.P-5, memo of handing over dead body Ex.P-6, recovery of clothes worn by the deceased Ex.P-7.42. PW-17 Amararam S.H.O. conducted the investigation of the case, who narrated about the investigation conducted by him. From the statement of this witness and documentary evidence produced by prosecution, it reveals that clothes worn by the deceased-Mukesh at the time of incident i.e., shirt, baniyan, underwear and pant were recovered vide Ex.P-7, sealed on the spot and marked "A". Samples of control soil and blood smeared soil were taken from the spot vide Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11 respectively, sealed on the spot and marked "B" and "C". Blood stained pant and shirt worn by accused-Jai Singh were seized on his instance vide memo Ex.P-3 on 07.05.2008 in a sealed cover marked "D". One blood stained shirt was seized from accused-Guman Singh on his instance vide memo Ex.P-17 on 11.05.2008 in a sealed cover marked "E" in consequence of information Ex.P-55 given by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act. One blood stained knife was seized at the instance of accused-Jai Singh vide memo Ex.P-19 on 11.05.2008 in a sealed cover marked "F", in consequence of information Ex.P-56 given by accused-Jai Singh under Section 27 of Evidence Act.43. It also reveals that 6 articles marked A,B,C,D,E and F were given to PW-16 Jugal Kishore in sealed condition by PW-13 Shrawan Kumar Maalkhana Incharge, who obtained letter from S.P. Office and deposited the same on 30.05.2008 in Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and obtained receipt No. 4441 which is Ex.P-26. According to FSL report Ex.P-63, human blood was detected on pant and shirt of accused-Jai Singh recovered at his instance and marked "D", on shirt of accused-Guman Singh recovered at his instance and on his information and marked "E", knife (Chaku) seized at the instance of appellant-Jai Singh on his information and marked "F".44. In Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna v. State of Andhara Pradesh reported in (2012) 6 SCC 174 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Court can draw adverse inference against him. The absence of any explanation by the accused-appellants regarding detection of human blood found on the clothes of accused-Jai Singh and Guman Singh and the knife recovered at the instance of Jai Singh, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the human blood found on the clothes of accused-Jai Singh and Guman Singh and knife was the blood of deceased-Mukesh as stated by prosecution.45. In Ramesh Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar (supra), according to prosecution case, accusedpersons were ploughing the land claiming the land to be theirs and some of them had a gun while some others had weapons like ghandasa and lathis. When the complainant party went there and protested, the accused-persons asserted that it was their land and after some altercation accused Ramdas brought out the gun and fired which hit Mundrika, who died at the spot. Two other accused-persons Ram Pravesh and Ramanand came and caught hold of Tapeshwar belonging to complainant party and at that point of time Samunder and Sheo came with Ghandasa and gave blows on the head of Tapeshwar by Ghandasa. Hon'ble the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that two accused-persons who caught hold the deceased shared common intention with the other two accused who had inflicted the blows which resulted in death of the deceased. Consequently, the accused who had held the deceased cannot be held guilty of the charge under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. But the accused who had given fatal blows did commit the offence under Section 302/34. Due to change in facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment given by the Apex Court is distinguishable and is not of much help to the accused-appellants.46. In view of the discussions made above, we agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court and find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.47. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
"2017 (2) WLC 101, 2017 (2) RAJCriC 773,"