STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOHAN LAL & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 23-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 564 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
MOHAN LAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2005) 
MARCH 23, 2012 
[T.S. THl\.KUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 148, 3021149, 323, 3241149 and 
325 - Prosecution under- Conviction by trial court - High Court 
C acquitting the accused uls. 3021149 and convicting them 
under rest of the provisions - On appeal, held: High Court was 
justified in holding that the injuries were simple in nature on 
non-vital parts of the body and were not sufficient to cause 
death - Prosecution failed to establish the charge of murder 
o beyond reasonable doubt - Sentence for the period already 
undergone is also justified. 
The respondents accused were prosecuted u/ss. 148, 
302/149, 323, 324/149 and 325 IPC for having caused 
death of one person and causing injury to another. Trial 
E Court convicted the accused under all the provisions. On 
appeal, High Court partly allowed the appeal. It convicted 
the accused u/ss. 148, 323, 324/149 and 325 IPC, while 
acquitted them u/s. 302/149 IPC holding that the injuries 
were simple in nature on non-vital parts of the body and 
F thus were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary 
course of nature. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was justified in holding that 
the prosecution had not been able to establish the charge 
of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court 
has correctly observed thats the deposition of (PW-13) 
had clearly established that the injuries sustained by the 
H 
564 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAN LAL & ORS. 
565 
deceased were all simple in nature inflicted upon non-
A 
vital parts of the body. It is also difficult to attribute any 
knowledge to the accused that the injuries inflicted by 
them were likely to cause death, the same being simple 
in nature. The doctor had also clearly admitted in cross-
examination that no finding was recorded in the post-
B 
mortem report Exh.P-21 that the injuries in question were 
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 
There was, in that view of the matter and in the absence 
of any other evidence to support the charge levelled 
against the accused, no reason to find them guilty of c 
murder. [Paras 6 and 8) (569-C-E] 
1.2 The trial court had placed heavy reliance upon the 
presence of blood clots below the scalp and inside the 
middle portion of the skull of the deceased to come to the 
conclusion that the death may have been caused by the 
D 
injuries on the head which is a vital part of the body. The 
trial court failed to note that there was no external injury 
reported by the doctor on any part of the head. If the 
respondents really intended to commit the murder of the 
deceased and if they were armed with weapons like 
E 
'lathis' and 'dhariyas' of which the latter is a sharp-edged 
weapon, it is difficult to appreciate why they would not 
have attacked on any vital part of his body. The absence 
of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence 
of external injury on the skull clearly show that the 
F 
accused had not intended to cause the death of the 
deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to 
cause death. [Para 7) [569-F-H; 570-A] 
2. On the question of sentence, there is no G 
compelling reason to interfere. The incident in question 
is more than 12 years old. The respondents have already 
suffered incarceration for four years which should suffice 
having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A the incident in question appears to have taken place. 
[Para 8] [570-C-D] 
B 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 316 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.12.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal 
Appeal No. 509 of 2001. 
Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant. 
V.J. Francis, Anupam Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
:r.s. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave assails 
D the correctness of the judgment and order dated 2nd 
December, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature for 
Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2001 
filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence 
for offences punishable under sections 148, 302/149, 323, 324/ 
E 149 and 325 of the IPC has been partly allowed and while 
setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respon

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.