{"id":113015,"date":"2009-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-23T20:24:20","modified_gmt":"2017-06-23T14:54:20","slug":"ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                                                   1\n                                                         D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84\n                                                       (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                         JODHPUR\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n\n             Ved Prakash & Ors        vs.     State of Rajasthan\n\n\n                D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100\/1984\n                Against the judgment & order dt. 16.02.1984,\n                passed by Additional District and Sessions\n                Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case\n                No. 65\/1983.\n\nDate of Order                          :          17th April, 2009\n\n                             PRESENT\n                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.P. GUPTA\n                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA\n\nMr. S.G. Ojha, for the appellants.\nMr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.\n\n\nBY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE GUPTA, J.)<\/pre>\n
             This appeal has been filed by five accused persons against<\/p>\n
the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh,<\/p>\n
dated 16.02.1984 convicting them as under :-\n<\/p>\n
1.     Accused Ved Prakash :-\n<\/p>\n
     S.No.      Conviction under Section(s)                Sentence
\n       1     302 IPC                          Life imprisonment alongwith fine
\n                                              of Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo
\n                                              six months imprisonment
\n       2     148 IPC                          One year rigorous imprisonment
\n                                              alongwith Rs.100\/- fine, in default
\n                                              of fine, one month R.I.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                                                    2<\/span>\n                                                         D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84\n                                                       (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)\n\n     S.No.    Conviction under Section(s)                  Sentence\n       3      325\/149 IPC                     Three       years      rigorous\n                                              imprisonment alongwith Rs.500\/-\n                                              fine, in default of fine, three\n                                              months R.I.\n       4      324\/149 IPC                     Two year rigorous imprisonment\n                                              alongwith Rs.200\/- fine, in default\n                                              of fine, two months R.I.\n       5      323\/149 IPC                     One months R.I.\n\n2.     Accused Najar Singh :-\n\n      S.No.     Conviction under Section(s)                Sentence\n        1       148 IPC                       One year R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 100\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              one month R.I..\n        2       324 IPC                       Two years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 200\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              two months R.I..\n        3       325\/149 IPC                   Three years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              three months R.I..\n        4       323\/149 IPC                   One month R.I.\n\n3.     Accused Gokul Singh :-\n\n\n\n\n      S.No.     Conviction under Section(s)                Sentence\n        1       148 IPC                       One year R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 100\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              one month R.I..\n        2       324\/149 IPC                   Two years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 200\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              two months R.I..\n        3       325 IPC                       Three years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                              Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo\n                                              three months R.I..\n        4       323\/149 IPC                   One month R.I.\n                                                                                  3<\/span>\n                                                       D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84\n                                                     (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)\n\n4.    Accused Makhan Singh :-\n\n     S.No.     Conviction under Section(s)               Sentence\n       1        148 IPC                      One year R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 100\/-, in default to undergo\n                                             one month R.I..\n       2       325\/149 IPC                   Three years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo\n                                             three months R.I..\n       3       324\/149 IPC                   Two years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 200\/-, in default to undergo\n                                             two months R.I..\n       4       323 IPC                       One month R.I.\n\n5.    Accused Sada lal :-\n\n     S.No.     Conviction under Section(s)               Sentence\n       1        148 IPC                      One year R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 100\/-\n       2       325\/149 IPC                   Three years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo\n                                             three months R.I..\n       3       324\/149 IPC                   Two years R.I. alongwith fine of\n                                             Rs. 200\/-, in default to undergo\n                                             two months R.I..\n       4       323\/149 IPC                   One month R.I.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
             During pendency of the appeal, appellants No. 3 and 5 Sada<\/p>\n
lal and Najar Singh respectively, expired and their appeals have also been<\/p>\n
ordered to have abetted vide order dated 27.10.1999. Thus, the appeal<\/p>\n
survives only on behalf of three accused persons, Ved Prakash, Makhan<\/p>\n
Singh and Gokul Singh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Brief facts of the case are, that on 18.06.82, at about 1:30
\n                                                                                4<\/span>
\n                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
P.M., one Karnail Singh lodged a report at Police Station Sangaria, District<\/p>\n
Sriganganagar to the effect, that Pratap Singh has a dispute of land with<\/p>\n
the complainant party for last 4-5 years. In this background, at about 9-<\/p>\n
9:30 A.M., the informant alongwith Jarnail Singh, Balbir Singh and Bahiya<\/p>\n
were going to their field, in that process, when they crossed the canal,<\/p>\n
and went to the field of Pratap Singh, they found Makhan Singh, Gokul<\/p>\n
Singh armed with Sela, Sada lal armed with pistol and sword, Najar Singh<\/p>\n
armed with Gandasa and Ved Prakash armed with Kassi. Makhan Singh<\/p>\n
called Pratap Singh, and when Pratap Singh, Balbir Singh and Bahiya went<\/p>\n
towards him, Sada lal fired two shots, and Makhan Singh etc, with an<\/p>\n
intention to kill Pratap Singh, they started giving beating. The informant<\/p>\n
and Jarnail singh kept aback. Pratap Singh and Balbir Singh received<\/p>\n
injuries on the head, while Bahiya received injuries on arm, and they fell<\/p>\n
down. When the informant and Jarnail Singh challenged the accused, the<\/p>\n
accused ran away.      It was alleged that the incident was caused on<\/p>\n
account of dispute of land.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             On this report, a case under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149,<\/p>\n
324, 323 and 336 IPC was registered. During investigation, Pratap Singh<\/p>\n
died, and therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. After<\/p>\n
necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed.<\/p>\n
             The case was then committed to the learned trial court.
\n                                                                               5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                  (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
Learned trial court charged all the three accused persons for the offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 148, 302 in the alternative 302\/34 IPC, 307 IPC in the<\/p>\n
alternative 307\/34 IPC, 324, 325 in the alternative 325\/34 IPC, 323 in the<\/p>\n
alternative 323\/34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             During trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and<\/p>\n
tendered in evidence some more than 45 documents. Accused did not<\/p>\n
lead any evidence in defence. After so concluding the trial, the learned<\/p>\n
trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as above.<\/p>\n
             The case, in the present case rests on the evidence of eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses, being PW\/1 Bahiya, PW\/2 Balbir Singh, PW\/4 Karnail Singh and<\/p>\n
PW\/8 Jarnail singh. In that view of the matter, instead of encumbering<\/p>\n
the record, we stand better advised to concentrate on the deposition of<\/p>\n
eye-witnesses, out of them PW\/1 and PW\/2 are injured eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
also.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             PW\/1 Bahiya has stated, that there was dispute between<\/p>\n
Pratap Singh and Makhan Singh, about the land. On the fateful day, at<\/p>\n
about 9-9:30 A.M. in the morning she alongwith Pratap Singh, Balbir<\/p>\n
Singh, Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh were going on the field. After they<\/p>\n
crossed the canal, Makhan Singh called Pratap Singh. She had identified<\/p>\n
Makhan Singh correctly in the Court, and stated that alongwith Makhan
\n                                                                               6<\/span>
\n                                                    D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                  (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
Singh, Ved Prakash, Gokul Singh, Najar Singh and Sada lal were also<\/p>\n
there.   She alongwith Pratap Singh and Balbir Singh went to Makhan<\/p>\n
Singh, who was armed with Sela while Ved Prakash was armed with Kassi.<\/p>\n
Najar Singh was armed with Gandasi. Gokul Singh was armed with Sela<\/p>\n
and Sada lal was armed with sword and pistol. On the asking of Makhan<\/p>\n
Singh, Ved Prakash inflicted a kassi blow on the left side of the head of<\/p>\n
Pratap Singh. Other accused persons also started giving beating to Pratap<\/p>\n
Singh.   When she and Balbir Singh went to intervene, they were also<\/p>\n
given beating.   She has then stated that Najar Singh inflicted Gandasi<\/p>\n
blow on Pratap Singh and then they ran away. She and Balbir Singh were<\/p>\n
given beating by Najar Singh, Ved Prakash and Makhan Singh with various<\/p>\n
weapons. She has identified all the accused persons present in Court.<\/p>\n
Then Pratap Singh and Balbir Singh were brought under the Khejadi tree,<\/p>\n
where they were given water, and Karnail Singh went to Police station.<\/p>\n
The injuries were medically examined. She was cross-examined at length.<\/p>\n
She stated that from the Khejadi three, they were taken by police. Then<\/p>\n
she was cross-examined about the presence of blood on the clothes of<\/p>\n
other witnesses and about present of blood below khejadi tree.             She<\/p>\n
admitted that she did not give out to Investigating officer that Jarnail<\/p>\n
Singh and Karnail Singh told accused persons that they have already<\/p>\n
given enough beating.    The details of number of injuries were given.<\/p>\n
Likewise, she was cross-examined on the aspect of individual injuries<\/p>\n
having been inflicted on individual victims. She has maintained that Ved
\n                                                                                7<\/span>
\n                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
Prakash had inflicted Kassi blow on her left rib, which is not mentioned in<\/p>\n
Ex.D\/1 with which she was confronted. Likewise, she was cross-examined<\/p>\n
regarding piercing injury of Sela, and she maintained that she was<\/p>\n
inflicted injuries with Gandasi numbering 5-6.      Then she was cross-<\/p>\n
examined about title of the land, and about other litigations said to be<\/p>\n
pending. She has admitted the fact that the case filed by them against<\/p>\n
the accused for offence under Section 447 IPC has been dismissed, but<\/p>\n
she denied about any prosecution having been lodged against her for<\/p>\n
offence under Section 182 IPC. She has denied the suggestion, that on<\/p>\n
04.06.77, her father Pala Singh had agreed to sell the land at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs. 3000\/- per bigha. She has maintained, that she was interrogated by<\/p>\n
the police that very day. They remained in the hospital for 4 – 5 hours.<\/p>\n
She has deposed ignorance about any injuries being thereon the person<\/p>\n
of accused persons Makhan Singh and Ved Prakash. She has maintained<\/p>\n
that any one of the witnesses were not armed with any weapon. She has<\/p>\n
deposed ignorance about one Myan, one sword, one sela and one<\/p>\n
gandasa having been found on the spot. She has also deposed ignorance<\/p>\n
about Makhan Singh having lodged any report against them on that very<\/p>\n
day.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Then we come to the evidence of PW\/2 Balbir Singh who is<\/p>\n
another injured. He has deposed, that Pratap Singh was his brother, and<\/p>\n
on the fateful day, Pratap Singh, Bahiya, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and
\n                                                                                8<\/span>
\n                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
himself had crossed the canal for going to the field, where Makhan Singh<\/p>\n
was found at canal, who called Pratap Singh. At that time, other accused<\/p>\n
Sada lal, Gokul Singh, Najar Singh and Ved Prakash were also there, who<\/p>\n
are present in the Court. Makhan Singh and Gokul Singh were armed<\/p>\n
with Sela, Ved Prakash was having Kassi, Nazar Singh was having<\/p>\n
Gandasi, and Sada lal was having one sword and pistol. In response to<\/p>\n
call of Makhan Singh, the witness alongwith Pratap Singh and Bahiya<\/p>\n
went. Sada lal fired at them, which did not hit, then second shot was<\/p>\n
fired. Ved Prakash dealt with a Kassi blow on the head of Pratap Singh on<\/p>\n
the left side, and all the accused persons showered blows on Pratap<\/p>\n
Singh. Sada lal kept standing simply telling that if any body comes to<\/p>\n
intervene, he will be shot dead. When witness Bahiya went to intervene<\/p>\n
she was also given beating. Najar Singh caused injuries to witnesses by<\/p>\n
Gandasa, Makhan Singh with Sela, Gokul Singh with Sela and Ved Prakash<\/p>\n
with Kassiya. Likewise, he also deposed about injuries caused to Bahiya.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, all the accused persons gave beating to Pratap Singh, who<\/p>\n
was lying in Killa No.7, then Jarnail Singh and Karnail Singh raised a cry,<\/p>\n
thereupon accused persons went away. Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh,<\/p>\n
then brought the injured under the shade of khejadi tree and then went<\/p>\n
to lodge the report. Police came and undertook necessary investigation,<\/p>\n
prepared various memos, which bear his signatures.           Then in cross-<\/p>\n
examination, he denied the suggestion about any case having been<\/p>\n
initiated against him under Section 110 Cr.P.C on the complaint of Makhan
\n                                                                                 9<\/span>
\n                                                      D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                    (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
Singh. Then, he was cross-examined about the details of injuries, where<\/p>\n
he has maintained the statement given in examination-in-chief. He was<\/p>\n
confronted with police statement Ex.D\/2 about all the five accused<\/p>\n
persons having given beating to Pratap Singh, and the place where he<\/p>\n
had fallen, which facts is not mentioned in Ex.D\/2. He has stated that he<\/p>\n
was having turban on hand, which turban got cut. Then, he stated that<\/p>\n
Sada lal had fired gunshot from a distance of about 10-15 paces, which<\/p>\n
did not hit. He has denied the suggestion about any shot having not been<\/p>\n
fired at that place. Then he was confronted with other contradictions in<\/p>\n
Ex.D\/2, about the act of Sada lal in threatening others.        PW\/4 Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh and PW\/8 Jarnail Singh have corroborated these witnesses, and<\/p>\n
have proved various memos prepared by the police, which bear their<\/p>\n
respective signatures.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that<\/p>\n
the learned trial court has found the accused Ved Prakash only, to be<\/p>\n
guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor, and other accused<\/p>\n
persons have not been held responsible for that. It has also been found<\/p>\n
that evidence is of Ved Prakash having inflicted one Kassiya blow on the<\/p>\n
head of deceased. On this basis it was contended, that though Pratap<\/p>\n
Singh was found to have sustained number of injuries, but in absence of<\/p>\n
finding guilty for the other injuries, he can be held responsible for the one<\/p>\n
injury only, and by causing that injury, offence under Section 302 IPC is
\n                                                                               10<\/span>
\n                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
not made out. Rather the only office made out would at best not travel<\/p>\n
beyond section 304 part II, for which he is required to be released on the<\/p>\n
period of imprisonment already undergone by him, as he as remained in<\/p>\n
jail for more then three years. Then it was submitted, that so far as other<\/p>\n
accused persons are concerned, their conviction was not seriously<\/p>\n
challenged, but was submitted that for the offences for which they have<\/p>\n
been convicted, more so, when the offence relates to year 1982, and the<\/p>\n
accused persons are on bail since 1983, it would not be in the interest of<\/p>\n
justice to send them back to jail for serving their remaining period of<\/p>\n
sentence, and they should be released on the sentence already<\/p>\n
undergone.          Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand,<\/p>\n
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the<\/p>\n
severity of the injury on the head, which has resulted in death of<\/p>\n
deceased, the case clearly falls under Section 302 IPC. Regarding other<\/p>\n
accused persons, it was submitted that now significant time has elapsed,<\/p>\n
but then looking to the nature of injuries caused and the period of<\/p>\n
imprisonment having undergone, which is bit less than eight months, it is<\/p>\n
not a fit case where they should be released on sentence already<\/p>\n
undergone.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The learned public prosecutor on the other hand supported<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
             We have heard both the sides and have closely scanned the<\/p>\n
entire record.\n<\/p>\n
             So far as the accused Makhan Singh and Gokul Singh are<\/p>\n
concerned, they have been conviction under Sections 148, 325, 324\/149,<\/p>\n
323 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
             Looking to the injuries of Bahiya and Balbir Singh as found in<\/p>\n
their respective injury reports, being Ex.14 and Ex.15, its shows that<\/p>\n
Balbir Singh has received incised wound 2 ” x 3\/4 ” x bone deep on the<\/p>\n
front parietal region, lacerated wound 1 ” x 1\/8 ” scalp deep on the left<\/p>\n
occipital region, then lacerated wound on left ankle joint and on the right<\/p>\n
leg. There was swelling on lower one third of left arm. On X-ray, the<\/p>\n
injury on the forearm, and on the left leg, were found to be grievous.<\/p>\n
             Likewise, Bahiya had incised wound 1 3\/4″ x \u00bc” muscle<\/p>\n
deep on the parietal region, then lacerated wound on the left index finger,<\/p>\n
swelling on the back side of left hand, and there was also swelling on the<\/p>\n
left shoulder on the back side. Further, there was incised wound on the<\/p>\n
left hand below 3rd metacarpal phalange joint. Out of them, the injury on<\/p>\n
the shoulder was found to be grievous. Then, a look at the postmortem<\/p>\n
report shows, that the fatal injury, being injury no.1, on the head of<\/p>\n
Pratap Singh was a lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm x bone deep over left<\/p>\n
parietal area. There was swelling 2x 2 cm over left parietal, with sub-<\/p>\n
dural haemotoma.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                     D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                   (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
             It is significant to note, that the learned trial court has not<\/p>\n
charged all the accused persons with the aid of Section 149 IPC, nor have<\/p>\n
found them guilty with the aid of Section 34 IPC., so far as offence under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC is concerned, and there is no challenge to that judgment<\/p>\n
by the State either.   In that view of the matter, it is required to be<\/p>\n
considered, that so far as death of Pratap Singh is concerned, only<\/p>\n
individual accused persons, who may have caused fatal injury can be held<\/p>\n
to be responsible.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             In the present case, the trial court has found only the<\/p>\n
accused Ved Prakash to be guilty, and again, there is no challenge to that<\/p>\n
by the State, though Ved Prakash has been attributed many injuries, but<\/p>\n
the trial court has found the injury on head of Pratap Singh to have been<\/p>\n
caused by Ved Prakash. In our view, from the reading of statements of<\/p>\n
four witnesses PW\/1, PW\/2, PW\/4 and PW\/8, in the entirety, we are at<\/p>\n
one with the learned trial court, to the extent, that this head injury was<\/p>\n
caused to Pratap Singh, by Ved Prakash.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Again this is required to be considered, as to whether the<\/p>\n
accused Ved Prakash has rightly been found to be guilty for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302 IPC. In our view, the answer is to be in negative,<\/p>\n
inasmuch as when accused Ved Prakash is attributed Kassi, which is a
\n                                                                                13<\/span>
\n                                                      D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                    (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
sharp edged weapon, he could have very well inflicted the blow with the<\/p>\n
sharp side, but injury has been caused by the reverse side.         It has also<\/p>\n
been found by the trial court, that the accused persons had no intention<\/p>\n
of causing death of any of the victims, but the intention was only to give<\/p>\n
beating. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said, that Ved Prakash<\/p>\n
caused death, by causing injury, with intention to cause death. But at the<\/p>\n
same time considering to the part of body selected, and the severity of<\/p>\n
the blow, it can very well be inferred, that while inflicting such a severe<\/p>\n
blow, the accused very well knew that he would be causing such an<\/p>\n
injury, as would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause<\/p>\n
death. Thus, the act of the accused, clearly falls within the second part of<\/p>\n
Section 304 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             So far as other accused persons are concerned, true it is that<\/p>\n
they have caused serious injuries to the two victims, but then, accused<\/p>\n
Sada lal who was charged under Section 307 IPC, has been acquitted of<\/p>\n
the said charge.   This coupled with the fact, that may be the accused<\/p>\n
persons have remained in jail only for a period little less than eight<\/p>\n
months, but then the fact also does remain, that the occurrence relates to<\/p>\n
year 1982, and accused Makhan Singh and Gokul Singh are already on<\/p>\n
bail since 1983. At the time of occurrence, accused Gokul Singh appears<\/p>\n
to be of age of 25 years, while accused Makhan Singh appears to be of<\/p>\n
age of 36 years. Thus, the accused Gokul Singh must be around 50 years
\n                                                                                14<\/span>
\n                                                      D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                    (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
by now, and Makhan Singh would be in his sixties.                     In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, in our view, it would not be in the interest of justice, to<\/p>\n
send them back to jail to serve out the remaining term of sentence, and<\/p>\n
instead, a heavy amount of fine should be imposed on them.<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of<\/p>\n
accused Ved Prakash under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead he is<\/p>\n
convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, and is sentenced<\/p>\n
to seven years rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1000\/-, in default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine, he shall undergo one year’s further rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment. Since he has already served out the sentence imposed on<\/p>\n
him for the other offences under Section 324, 325, 148 IPC, we need not<\/p>\n
interfere with that part of the sentence. Then, the substantive sentence<\/p>\n
of imprisonment awarded to accused Makhan Singh and Gokul Singh is<\/p>\n
reduced to the period already undergone. However the sentence of fine<\/p>\n
imposed on Makhan Singh is increased to Rs. 5000\/- on each count, being<\/p>\n
under Section 148, 325\/149 and 324\/149 IPC, and, in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine, he will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year on<\/p>\n
each count, consecutively and separately.      Similarly, sentence of fine<\/p>\n
imposed on Gokul Singh is also increased to Rs. 5000\/- on each count,<\/p>\n
being under Section 148, 324\/149, 325 and 323\/149 IPC, and in default<\/p>\n
of payment of fine, he will undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one<\/p>\n
year on each count, consecutively and separately.
\n                                                                              15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84
\n                                                  (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
             Out of the amount of fine, when recovered, a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
12,500\/- be paid to each of the injured, Smt. Bahiya and Balbir Singh, for<\/p>\n
the injuries suffered by them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(C.M. TOTLA), J.                                     (N.P. GUPTA), J.\n\n\nbjsh\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 1 D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 100\/84 (Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Ved Prakash & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100\/1984 Against the judgment & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nVed Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3016,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"},"wordCount":3016,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009","name":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-23T14:54:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ved-prakash-ors-vs-state-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ved Prakash & Ors vs State on 17 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}