The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judges, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani in the case of Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 304/2019) set aside murder conviction on finding inconsistency between medical & ocular evidence.
BRIEF FACTS: The petitioner filed the appeal against the judgement passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo additional simple imprisonment of three months. The petitioner was accused of murdering a 19 year old named Ambalal. The learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant urged that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was unbelievable and was contradicted by the medical evidence. He further urged that the witnesses had alleged that the accused inflicted lathi blow on the neck of the victim, whereas no corresponding injury was found on the body of the deceased. The Medical Jurist categorically stated that the injuries noticed on the dead body of the victim could have been caused by falling down from a tractor. The Medical Jurist did not state that there was any fracture at the location of the head injury.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court noticed that it was apparent that the accused appellant might have inflicted a lathi blow to Ambalal while he was sitting on the tractor and in all probability, the victim fell down from the tractor and received the injuries, which resulted in his death. The court further observed that the dimensions of the injury noticed on the ear of the deceased did not convince the court that the same could have been the result of a lathi blow. More likely, the said injury seemed to be the result of falling from the tractor. The court remarked that in any event, the lathi blows attributed to the appellant did not result in any grievous injury being caused to the victim and hence, held that the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The order passed by lower court was modified in the terms that the appellant was acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and instead he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K