{"id":36591,"date":"2009-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-04T12:52:13","modified_gmt":"2018-04-04T07:22:13","slug":"kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009<\/div>\n
                                           S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)\n                                       1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.\n\n                            J U D G M E N T.\n\n\nKEBU RAM                          V.           THE STATE OF RAJASHAN\n\n\n              S. B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260\/89,\n              against the judgment dated 4.7.89,\n              passed by Shri N.L.Meena, RHJS,\n              Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar\n              in Sessions Case No.41\/86.\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT                 :::                 21\/08\/2009\n\n\n                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA\n\n\nMr. M.K.Garg, for Appellant (s).\nMrs.Chandra Lekha, PP, for the State.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
      Appellant is aggrieved of his conviction and sentence awarded of<\/p>\n
four years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.4,000\/- for the offence<\/p>\n
of Section 304 Part II IPC to the petitioner recorded per judgment dated<\/p>\n
4.7.89 in SC No.41\/86.\n<\/p>\n
      Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
      Alleged events in short, according to prosecution, are that on<\/p>\n
26.3.86, ASI in-charge PW 11 received a memo Ex.P6 of medical officer,<\/p>\n
Government hospital, informing that patient Bhanwar Lal s\/o. Sardara<\/p>\n
Ram, age 26 years, r\/o. Shipuri, a case of injury is brought at hospital on<\/p>\n
that day at 3.30 P.M. so PW 11 ASI reached RCP Government hospital,<\/p>\n
Vijanynagar, where injured Bhanwar Lal s\/o. Sardara Ram was admitted,<\/p>\n
in a severe injured state-and     in presence of doctor PW 6 recorded<\/p>\n
statement of Bhanwarlal s\/o. Sardara Ram Ex.P7. Bhanwarlal stated that
\n                                              S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                                (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
on that day morning, when he with his father, was sitting at his home,<\/p>\n
where also       were Dhiraram and Punaram – came Kebu Ram (the<\/p>\n
appellant)     and asked him to accompany to field, but he         (deceased<\/p>\n
Bhanwarlal) declined as it was day of “rama rami” (day of hpli festival<\/p>\n
when visiting pleasantries exchanged) but Kebu Ram insisted telling that<\/p>\n
shall come after five minutes after unloading fertilizer      from cart, but<\/p>\n
father    (of Bhanwarlal) also stated that not possible to return in 5-10<\/p>\n
minutes, still Kebu persuaded so he (Bhanwarlal) and Keburam both<\/p>\n
taking cart of Banwari and loading it with fertilizers arrived at 9 A.M. at<\/p>\n
agriculture field 15 BGD of Keburam and unloading it, Bhanwarlal asked<\/p>\n
Keburam to return soon, but Keburam         told of visiting Dhani of Santa<\/p>\n
Banta so both went to their dhani – there half or three quarter bottle of<\/p>\n
wine consumed by them so Bhanwarlal completely intoxicated, less was<\/p>\n
consumed by Kebu who brought Bhanwarlal back to his field, where<\/p>\n
inflicted injury of some article at his right thigh. Bhanwarlal described that<\/p>\n
as Kebu inflicted at his right thigh severally bleeded so he asked him<\/p>\n
(Keburam) that injury big one and he cannot return home so he<\/p>\n
(appellant) to take him at home and also asked for water then appellant<\/p>\n
brought      him to village. Stated that injury of “Gandasi” (spear like) is<\/p>\n
inflicted by appellant, injured taken to hospital by his elder father Dhira<\/p>\n
Ram and injury cannot because of animosity relating to agreement for a<\/p>\n
watch entered a month ago which appellant wished to be rescinded but<\/p>\n
he not – ASI PW 11 writing statement Ex.P7 on basis of it registered FIR<\/p>\n
No. 37\/86 Ex.P16 for the offences of Sections 307 and 324 IPC and<\/p>\n
forwarded Ex.P8 to medical officer to examine and prove injury report<\/p>\n
but medical officer mentioned that it is a dispensary and as injured not in<\/p>\n
condition of shock whose pulse and BP not recordable so he immediately<\/p>\n
forwarded from there to Ganganagar hospital. PW 11, in course of
\n                                            S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
investigation on 26.3.86, obtained blood stained worn cloths shirt, under-<\/p>\n
wear and also bed-sheet preparing Ex.P13 and as deceased Bhanwarlal<\/p>\n
undergoing treatment expired at Ganganagar hospital, so prepared<\/p>\n
memos Exs.P14 and P15 on 27.3.86. Post-mortem conducted and report<\/p>\n
Ex.P10 prepared. Appellant arrested on 2.4.86 vide memo Ex.P17 and as<\/p>\n
per his disclosure of 6.4.86 reduced in writing by SHO PW 7 as Ex.P9 and<\/p>\n
at his instance recovered shirt blood stained and a bed-sheet from room<\/p>\n
of his house and sealed preparing Ex.P1. Dy.S.P. PW 12 in course of<\/p>\n
investigation on 17.3.87 inspecting field 15 BGD of accused-appellant, the<\/p>\n
said place of incident, prepared memos Ex.P3 and P3A, where blood was<\/p>\n
at an area of 5 ft. x 2 ft. so sample of blood stained and also plain soil<\/p>\n
collected and sealed preparing memos Exs. P4 and P5. Appellant on<\/p>\n
8.4.86 at 5 O’clock n evening     disclosed PW 7 that the “Gandasi” is<\/p>\n
concealed by him in kotha (large container made of clay and mud) lying at<\/p>\n
his residential house and PW 12 writing information Ex.P18, at leading<\/p>\n
instance of appellant, recovered from kotha a gandasi which was 5 ft 3<\/p>\n
inches long with mettle fulcrum of nine inch having some blood like stains,<\/p>\n
and sealed preparing memo Ex.P2 and site plan Ex.P19. Keeping packets<\/p>\n
of all the articles safe in malkhana, same were deposited obtaining receipt<\/p>\n
Ex.P12, for examination at laboratory. Recording statements of witnesses<\/p>\n
and completing investigation, charge-sheet for the offences of Sections<\/p>\n
302, 307 and 324 IPC submitted in Magisterial Court and on committal,<\/p>\n
the sessions case registered.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant charged for the offence of Section 302 IPC that he on<\/p>\n
26.3.86 at about 9.30 A.M. at field 15 BGD Anupgarh to cause and<\/p>\n
knowing definitely that by doing so, shall cause death, inflicted injury of<\/p>\n
“Gandasi” to Bhanwarlal causing his death, thus murdered him, denying –<\/p>\n
claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
                                             S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                               (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
       Prosecution examined 12 witnesses among them are Sardara Ram<\/p>\n
PW 1 father and Dhira Ram PW 2 elder father of deceased. PW 6 is<\/p>\n
doctor medical officer of dispensary who informed police station of injured<\/p>\n
deceased being admitted and before him recorded by ASI PW 11 were<\/p>\n
statements of deceased Ex.P7. Dr. Gupta PW 8 who conducted post-<\/p>\n
mortem, proves report Ex.P10. PWs 3, 4 and 5 are “motbirs” of recovery<\/p>\n
etc. Head Constable PW 9 malkhana incharge and constable PW 10<\/p>\n
depose about safe custody of packets of article and depositing same at<\/p>\n
laboratory. PW 11 ASI the then incharge, PW 7 SHO and PW 12 Dy.S.P.<\/p>\n
are investigating officers.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant explained that witnesses    all belonging to complainant<\/p>\n
side are telling lie – in defence examined is Santa Singh DW 1 who states<\/p>\n
that appellant coming to him at noon told of Bhanwarlal attacked by ox<\/p>\n
having received injuries. He (the witness) went where Bhanwarlal was<\/p>\n
lying injured who told of injury by horns of ox and he taken in cart by<\/p>\n
this witness to village.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned Judge arriving at conclusion that appellant inflicted the<\/p>\n
injury, but not with intention to cause death – neither is on vital part<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced under Part II Section 304 IPC.<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the appellant argued that case is registered on<\/p>\n
the alleged statement of injured taken at hospital, whereas all witnesses<\/p>\n
depose that incident reported on telephone at police station and police<\/p>\n
official did come in village at house so the statement cannot be treated as<\/p>\n
FIR – for the above reason also strong basis that material part that is<\/p>\n
earliest version of deceased is suppressed – no person causing injury shall<\/p>\n
bring injured to or home – per statement of deceased, they went to Dhani<\/p>\n
of Santa Banta but none of them among prosecution witness – as per<\/p>\n
prosecution and FIR deceased went willingly with appellant and them both
\n                                            S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
also consumed liquor so no occasion of any quarrel was – both went in<\/p>\n
bullock cart and unloaded at field so defence version of deceased having<\/p>\n
received injuries by cart is quite possible and worth believable. Argued<\/p>\n
that had deceased not been injured in any other manner or injury inflicted<\/p>\n
by appellant, certainly appellant   would not have     rescuedly   brought<\/p>\n
deceased at own home. Lastly argued that incident is of March, 86 and<\/p>\n
appellant remained in custody about 6-7 months – now above 70 years of<\/p>\n
age suffering from paralysis and other permanent disability so sentence of<\/p>\n
period undergone shall meet ends of justice. Submitted that appellant is<\/p>\n
paralyzed – in support of contention submitted copy of permanent<\/p>\n
disability certificate provided by Government hospital and original made<\/p>\n
available for perusal.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
examining and evaluating every aspect of the matter has rightly convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       Considering rival arguments, perused assailed judgment, evidence<\/p>\n
produced and record.\n<\/p>\n
       Dr. Moman Ram PW 6 deposed that on March 26th, he was posted<\/p>\n
at hospital Vijaynagar where at about 3.30 P.M., Bhanwarlal was bruoght<\/p>\n
with a severe injury at upper right thigh so he informed vide note Ex.P6,<\/p>\n
to police station and then incharge Manoharlal coming, recorded in his<\/p>\n
presence statement of Bhanwarlal which Ex.P7 also bears endorsement<\/p>\n
and signature of this witness the doctor. PW 6 further states that he<\/p>\n
immediately providing first aid and as injured was not in good condition so<\/p>\n
for blood transfusion and essential treatment referred to Ganganagar<\/p>\n
hospital, and for this reason he could not prepare injury report and<\/p>\n
accordingly also informed police station in writing on Ex.P8, the request<\/p>\n
for examination. PW 6 states that Bhanwarlal though not unconscious but
\n                                               S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                                 (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
was in serious condition – endorsement on injury Ex.P8 mentions that<\/p>\n
pulse imperceptible and BP not recordable and wound bleeding.<\/p>\n
       Dr. Gupta PW 8 medical jurist Government hospital Ganganagar<\/p>\n
deposes that Bhanwarlal referred by incharge Vijaynagar hospital and<\/p>\n
admitted in surgical ward at 8.00 P.M. 26.3.86 scummbed at 10.55 P.M.,<\/p>\n
and he conducting post-mortem on body at 2.15 P.M. of 27.3.86 prepared<\/p>\n
Ex.P10 Bhanwarlal s\/o. Sardararam who identified by his father died as a<\/p>\n
result of excessive haemorrhage (bleeding) by injury a wound 5 cm x 3.5<\/p>\n
cm muscle deep at right ingual region that is upper part right thigh which<\/p>\n
injury was caused by sharp weapon cutting feumaral vessels and muscles.<\/p>\n
Dr. PW 8 deposing that in normal course injury sufficient to cause death<\/p>\n
in cross-examination says that organ where injury inflicted is vital but part<\/p>\n
is not vital.\n<\/p>\n
       Per evidence of Vijaynagar hospital doctor PW 6 at 3.30 P.M., injury<\/p>\n
was severely bleeding so and per evidence of other witness also is proved<\/p>\n
that this injury was caused after morning of 26.3.86. Also stands proved<\/p>\n
that deceased expired at 10.00 P.M. same night due to above injury.<\/p>\n
       Sardara Ram PW 1 deposed that in morning of second day of Holi<\/p>\n
festival, he, Dhiraj, Bhura and his son Bhanwarlal were at home – came<\/p>\n
Kebu (appellant) and told Bhanwarlal to accompany for unloading card of<\/p>\n
toodi (collected gober and like things used as agriculture fertiliser) and<\/p>\n
they soon shall be coming and PW 1 told son that day is of “Ramrami”<\/p>\n
and not possible to return soon so not to go but appellant – spoke of<\/p>\n
returning in five minutes and Bhanwarlal accompanied him. PW 1 states<\/p>\n
that thereafter, his daughter age 8 years informed that brother is at<\/p>\n
house of Kebu who brought him after badh (meaning like injury) so he<\/p>\n
soon at about 1.00      O’clock, along with    Dhira and Puna reached         at<\/p>\n
home of Kebu where Bhanwarlal with injury of palm length at right leg lay
\n                                               S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                                 (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
on cot – Bhanwarlal weeping in a pity state told of badh (injury) by Kebu<\/p>\n
with a gandasi and because of some dispute in relation to agreement<\/p>\n
regarding watch. According to the evidence of PW 1, at house of Kebu<\/p>\n
also was Santa and than Dhira Ram going to inform at police station,<\/p>\n
came back in half an hour after informing, police arrived at 2 – 2.15 P.M.<\/p>\n
and Bhanwarlal taken to hospital in police jeep         where at Vijaynagar<\/p>\n
hospital they reached at about 3.30 P.M. where given medical aid in 30-45<\/p>\n
minutes left for Ganganagar. PW 6 admitting of having preferred some<\/p>\n
application in relation to incident to the Home Minister and higher police<\/p>\n
officials, denies that in applications he also incriminated Santa and Banta.<\/p>\n
Dhira Ram PW 2, elder brother of PW 1 deposed that he and others were<\/p>\n
at house of PW 1 there came appellant Kebu Ram and asked Bhanwarlal<\/p>\n
to come for unloading cart, but Bhanwarlal refused as day of “rama-rami”<\/p>\n
but Kebu told of returning in five minutes so Bhanwarlal accompanied him<\/p>\n
– then daughter of PW 1 informed that injuring Bhanwarlal, Kebu has<\/p>\n
brought him in his cart so they went at house of appellant Kebu where<\/p>\n
Bhanwarlal lying on cot having a bleeding injury at right       thigh – was<\/p>\n
crying – Kebu and Santa did not allow him to go near so he going to<\/p>\n
Maharaja (member of thakur family) asked to inform – thereafter came<\/p>\n
police and thanedar slapping Kebu Ram twice asked why kept<\/p>\n
(Bhanwarlal) there with them carried Bhanwarlal to hospital and there,<\/p>\n
statement of Bhanwarlal were recorded – doctor after first aid referred for<\/p>\n
Ganganagar hospital and they all         arrived   Ganganagar at about 8.00<\/p>\n
P.M., where Bhanwarlal died by about 10 O’clock. The witness PW 2<\/p>\n
state of telling by the girl of beating by Kebu but denies he having stated<\/p>\n
so to police as is mentioned in his investigational statement Ex.D2 so the<\/p>\n
position per PW 2 remains that she told so to PW 2. At hospital, SHO<\/p>\n
recorded statement of Bhanwarlal who was speaking and little conscious.\n<\/p>\n
                                            S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
Father pf deceased PW 1 says that deceased was wearing baniyan,<\/p>\n
underwear, shirt and payjama which clothes are not seen by him<\/p>\n
thereafter and PW 2 says that safa and baniyan of Bhanwarlal at house of<\/p>\n
the appellant were not those he was wearing. With this is the fact that<\/p>\n
deceased was in injured and painful state so obviously PW 1 and PW 2<\/p>\n
were disturbed and even if clothes changed, they do not make any effect.<\/p>\n
ASI PW 11 declining of having received any information on telephone at<\/p>\n
police station,   says that if any such message was, the same was not<\/p>\n
taken by him. Per above evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, it appears          that<\/p>\n
police arrived there who helped Bhanwarlal to hospital, but no significant<\/p>\n
for recording FIR need to be attached to this fact because the injury was<\/p>\n
such as caused death at 10.00 P.M. so naturally and ought to have been<\/p>\n
every attention towards first providing medical aid.     Therefore, if any<\/p>\n
information of any nature was available or given prior to recording<\/p>\n
statements of deceased at Vijaynagar, non-recording or not taking of that<\/p>\n
as FIR does not make any effect and nature of statement Ex.P7 as FIR is<\/p>\n
not diminished. If any such no-cohesive information even if it was that<\/p>\n
cannot tantamount to FIR, particularly when on the basis of the statement<\/p>\n
of injured who scummbed soon recorded and the case registered.<\/p>\n
       Thus, it stands proved that injured was taken to hospital where he<\/p>\n
was in a physically fit condition to give statement. The statement Ex.P7 is<\/p>\n
recorded by the then incharge ASI PW 11 in presence of doctor PW 6. PW<\/p>\n
11 deposes that he had receipt of information Ex.P7 of medical officer<\/p>\n
arriving at hospital recorded statements of Bhanwarlal. On Ex.P7 with<\/p>\n
endorsement and      signature of PW 11 and also with endorsement and<\/p>\n
signagure of PW 6      the medical officer is mention of time 4.4.5 P.M.<\/p>\n
Dhira Ram PW 2 categorically states that he accompanied all the way and<\/p>\n
statement taken in his presence Ex.P7         beneath also have thumb
\n                                            S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
impression of PW 2. Bhanwarlal died of these injuries at 10.00 P.M. so this<\/p>\n
statement also came within specific category of statement under Section<\/p>\n
32 of Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
      According to statement Ex.P7 as and after he accompanied<\/p>\n
Bhanwarlal (as above narrated by PWs 1 and 2 and also mentioned in this<\/p>\n
Ex.P7) they both taking cart of Banwari arrived about 9 A.M. at field 15<\/p>\n
BGD of Kebu Ram – after unloading he asked Kebu to return hom being<\/p>\n
day of “Ramrami” (but) then on asking of Kebu Ram both went to Dhani<\/p>\n
of Santa Banta – there consumed half or three quarter bottle of liquor –<\/p>\n
deceased in full intoxication and appellant consumed little – appellant<\/p>\n
carried him to his field – there appellant inflicted injury of something at<\/p>\n
his right thigh. Bhanwarlal also stated that he injured by appellant as<\/p>\n
cannot move (or go) to home, asked appellant to carry him to home –<\/p>\n
also asked for providing water – then he taken by Kebu Ram to village<\/p>\n
and then taken to hospital by Dhira Ram. Statement also finds mention<\/p>\n
of disagreement over an agreement of watch having taken place a month<\/p>\n
earlier and that injury by Gandasi blown by appellant.<\/p>\n
      Evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, mentioned above, disclosed that<\/p>\n
deceased went with appellant on appellant’s insistence. Also surfaces that<\/p>\n
thereafter PW 1 and PW 2 did see Bhanwarlal only in injured state lying<\/p>\n
in the house of Kebu Ram. Non-informing by Kebu Ram himself is<\/p>\n
regarding how where by what in what manner injury caused to deceased.<\/p>\n
This minimises possibilities of receiving injury in any other was. Further,<\/p>\n
PW 1 and also PW 2 deposed that Bhanwarlal did           tell   that injury is<\/p>\n
caused to him only by appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      Though the statements of the deceased Ex.P7 mentions of some<\/p>\n
dispute about agreement of watch (ghari) entered about a month earlier –<\/p>\n
not described is existence of such or any dispute by PW 1 or PW 2 or
\n                                            S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                              (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
any other witness. Considering evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, it appears<\/p>\n
that if any such dispute was, it was too trifle one which came to there<\/p>\n
knowledge only at happening of this incident. Appellant himself has not<\/p>\n
mentioned of any such disagreement. Lastly, for the sake of argument,<\/p>\n
assuming so disagreement even than, definitely of a nature leading to<\/p>\n
false imputation for this incident-had there been any substantial<\/p>\n
differences, no reason could have been of deceased going with appellant<\/p>\n
in manner described. Appellant has not put in any explanation – defence<\/p>\n
witness Santa Singh DW 1 state    that at 12 – 1 noon, to him at his field,<\/p>\n
came appellant and told him of Bhanwarlal being injured by an ox so this<\/p>\n
witness going asked Bhanwarlal who narrated as to having been injured<\/p>\n
by horns of ox – or with pointed horns was also there and Bhanwarlal<\/p>\n
taken by him in cart to village. Santa Singh DW 1 admits that he did not<\/p>\n
tell so to police same day but after a week. As described, quite acceptable<\/p>\n
is evidence that deceased was at home of appellant and no other plausible<\/p>\n
fact of disclosing sustaining injury in any other manner is so version of<\/p>\n
DW 1 is to be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant arrested on 2.4.86 noon – on 6.4.86 disclosed to SHO PW<\/p>\n
7 that shirt, tripal and a bed-sheet having blood stains are in external<\/p>\n
western room of his residence. The SHO PW 7 states that at the instance<\/p>\n
of appellant from room at his residence, tripal, bed-sheet and a shirt was<\/p>\n
recovered and sealed. Memos are Exs. P1 and P9 and independent<\/p>\n
witness Dungar Ram PW 3 supports this recovery. Thus, is proved that<\/p>\n
from the house of the appellant, these articles were recovered. Other<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. PW 12 deposes that on 27.3.86 he inspecting<\/p>\n
site, collecting samples, prepared memos Exs. P3, 4 and 5. Independent<\/p>\n
witness Keshuram PW 5 supports. PW 12 states that appellant voluntarily<\/p>\n
disclosed that Gandasi is in his house lying in a kotha and than per this
\n                                             S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                               (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
information and at instance of appellant, he recovering gandasi, sealed it<\/p>\n
– respective memos are Exs. P 18 and 2. One of the independent<\/p>\n
witnesses Sultan Singh PW 4 though declared hostile, supports recovery.<\/p>\n
PW 4 seems to have been declared hostile because he states of recovery<\/p>\n
of an axe and not Gandasi. PW 4 says that appellant from his own house<\/p>\n
taking out axe, presented the same to police. Sultan Singh PW 4 says that<\/p>\n
by the words Gandasi mentioned in Ex.P2 he understands axe and the<\/p>\n
article recovered was 2 – 3 feet length having fulcrum of about 2 – 3<\/p>\n
inches. Thus, PW 4 supports and thus is proved recovery of such article of<\/p>\n
spear (the gandasi) from the appellant’s home. Testimony of malkhana<\/p>\n
incharge head constable PW 9 read with of constable Amar Singh PW 10<\/p>\n
proves that all articles safely deposited and kept in malkhana on the day<\/p>\n
collected or recovered and deposited in laboratory by constable PW 10<\/p>\n
obtaining receipt Ex.P12. FSL report Ex.P20 describes that five packets<\/p>\n
marked A to E received intact and sealed had described articles and on<\/p>\n
all except control soil and gandasi were stains of ‘o’ group human blood.<\/p>\n
As such proved is that on the cloth worn by deceased at hospital, on<\/p>\n
kameez, tripal and bed-sheet recovered from the possession of appellant<\/p>\n
and also at spot was human blood “o” group.\n<\/p>\n
      Considering evidence, no other inference other than that appellant<\/p>\n
inflicting the injury to deceased can be so the appellant is rightly<\/p>\n
convicted. Considering question of sentence, it appears that both<\/p>\n
consumed liquor willingly, at same place and in harmonious circumstance<\/p>\n
– then as above was some thing or reason occurred and appellant inflicted<\/p>\n
injury. What happened is not known and dispute of watch, if any, was<\/p>\n
perhaps not material at least till when they both willingly consumed liquor,<\/p>\n
but simultaneously is the fact that no other reason and no signs of any<\/p>\n
struggle or scuffle are. Incident is of mid 80s when appellant aged about
\n                                             S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89
\n                                               (Kebu Ram v. The State)
\n                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
was 50 years and     now around 70. Permanent disability certificate of<\/p>\n
August, 08 issued by the medical board comprising of three junior<\/p>\n
specialists medicine, surgery and orthopedic, states age at 68 and that 50<\/p>\n
per cent permanent disability with some effect on right side. It appears<\/p>\n
that appellant remained in custody from early April to September last 86<\/p>\n
and then for a month in July,89 thus, totaling about six-seven months.<\/p>\n
Considering very specific circumstances described above and as appellant<\/p>\n
on asking of Bhanwarlal brought him at home and now, in the opinion of<\/p>\n
the Court, and now no useful purpose will be served by sending the<\/p>\n
appellant to prison and appropriate is to punishing for the period already<\/p>\n
undergone and to impose appropriate fine. Considering         of Rs.4,000\/-<\/p>\n
than imposed by the trial Court, the fine           now    quantified to be<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of<\/p>\n
appellant Kebu Ram s\/o. Mohan Gir for the offence of Section 304 Part II<\/p>\n
IPC recorded vide judgment dated 4.7.89 (in SC No.41\/86) by the Court of<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar is upheld, but altering the<\/p>\n
sentence awarded to appellant for the above mentioned offence, is<\/p>\n
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/-, in default to undergo four months’ rigorous imprisonment.<\/p>\n
Out of fine Rs.30,000\/-, to deposit Rs.15,000\/- by 1.10.09, Rs.5,000\/- by<\/p>\n
1.11.09, Rs.5,000\/- by 10.12.09 and remaining Rs.5,000\/- by 15.1.2010,<\/p>\n
in trial Court failing which to appear on above mentioned dates before the<\/p>\n
trial Court for serving out the awarded sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (C.M. TOTLA),J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009 S.B.Criminal Appeal No.260\/89 (Kebu Ram v. The State) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T. KEBU RAM V. THE STATE OF RAJASHAN S. B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260\/89, 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-36591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nKebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 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\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-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=\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-04T07:22:13+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-04T07:22:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3736,\"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\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-04T07:22:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 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":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 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\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-04T07:22:13+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-04T07:22:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009"},"wordCount":3736,"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\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009","name":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-04T07:22:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kebu-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kebu Ram vs State on 21 August, 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\/36591","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=36591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}