SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 626

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR JJ.
Darasing Dhyansing and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1970 D/- 25-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Dholakia, Advocate, for Appellants; Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, M/s. B. D. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Sections 148,332, 342 326,436,149 - Mortgage property - Claiming land as mortgagee in possession - Charge-sheet - Engaged in a dispute with regard to a land with one - Claiming land as mortgagee in possession while was claiming that though land had been mortgaged with possession he was in possession under an agreement - During course of this dispute and her Manager tried to dispossess by force In this attempt they enlisted services of including appellants Darasing and Tarasing - Some days before present incident which took place a hut belonging situated in that land was burnt and in that connection an offence under Section 436, Indian Penal Code was registered - Appellants were arrested by Police and they appear to have been enlarged on bail by Sessions Court - A day later was beaten up and an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code was registered - For investigation of that offence attached to Rural Police Station went to Ram Nagar on morning of along with police constable After making some enquiries in village - Whether they had been properly identified - Held, Identity of three appellants contended that there were certain discrepancies and deficiencies in evidence which deserved serious consideration by High Court and hence summary dismissal of appeal was not justified - In Court opinion there is no substance in this contention - High Court should not summarily reject appeals if they raised arguable and substantial points - It was therefore necessary for to show that such points are involved in this appeal - In this connection pointed out that after he came to village Ram Nagar had not disclosed names of appellants to Police nor had he mentioned their names in telephone message he had sent to Police Station and this part of case deserved serious consideration. We do not think that any great importance can be attached to these points - Evidence which is considered by Sessions Court clearly goes to show that all three appellants had been known to him since before especially as first two appellants were accused in arson case and had been only recently released on bail - There was therefore no question of Making any mistake with regard to identity of these persons because incident had taken place in broad day light and Himself was victim of assault - Moreover stated in his evidence that when he contacted Police in village he had mentioned names to him though Police has not turned hostile in Court and refused to acknowledge that any such names had been mentioned to him - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- The appellants were convicted by the learned sessions Judge, Nadiad of the offences under Section 148 and Sections 332, 342 and 326 r/w Section 149. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment which were made to run concurrently. Their appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. Their appeal be special leave has been admitted by this Court..

2. The principal contention of Mr. Dholakia on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court was not justified in summarily rejecting the appeal as it raised arguable and substantial points relating to the identity of the appellants it is, therefore, necessary to mention the relevant facts.

3. One Shan a Madha of Ram Nagar was engaged in a dispute with regard to a land with one Bai Suraj. Bai Suraj was claiming the land as the mortgagee in possession while Shana Madha was claiming that though the land had been mortgaged with possession, he was in possession under an agreement. During the course of this dispute, Bai Suraj and her Manager Ramanlal Sheth tried to dispossess ShanaMadha by force In this attempt they enlisted the services of some Shikh Rakhawalas, including appellants Darasing and Tarasing. Some days before the present incident which took place on 29-5-1969 a hut belonging to Shans Madha situated in that land was burnt and in that connection an offence under Section 436, Indian Penal Code was registered. Appellants 1 and 2 were arrested by the Police and they appear to have been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court on 27-5-1969. A day later, Shana Madha s mother Bai Makor, was beaten up and an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code was registered. For the investigation of that offence P. S. I. Chaudhary, attached to the Anand Rural Police Station, went to Ram Nagar on the morning of 29-5-1969 along with police constable Shanabhai Mathurbhai After making some enquiries in the village. P. S,. I. Chaudhari accompanied by constable Shanabhai Mathurbhai. Went to the field of Shana Madha. Shana Madha arrived at about 11.00 A.M. and on the arrival P.S. I. Chaudhari started recording his statement. While the statement was being recorded the appellants and five others - who were all Shikh Rakhawalas - came to the spot armed with spears and Farsis and threatened Shana Madha not to involve them falsely. P. S. I. Chaudhari asked them to keep quiet and not to interfere with his duties. The appellants and their companies thereupon became excited and appellant No. 1 Darasing caught hold of the P. S. I. from behind, threw him on the ground and sat upon him. Appellant No. 1 then asked appellant No. 2 to remove the revolver which was attached to the strap worn by the P. S. I Appellant No. 2 forcibly removed the revolves with the leather case form the strap and thereafter, at the instance of appellant No. 1, all his companions started bearing Shana Madha with the stick portion of the spears and Farsis which they were carrying. Grievous hurt was caused to Shana Madha on his legs and hands and thereafter the appellants and his companions ran away towards another village named Sarda. P. S. I. Chaudhari then asked constable Shanabhai Mathurbhai to sit in the field by the side of the injured Shana Madha and went of Ram Nagar village He contacted the Police Patil and from there sent a telephone message to the Police Station for reinforcements. The police Patil went to the scene with others and arranged to remove Shana Madha to the hospital. They brought him to the road side near the canal and placed him in a passing taxi. Just at the time, P. S. I. Chaudhari also came there and got into the taxi. The party then went to Anand. The P. S. I. Got down at the Anand Rural Police Station and Shana Madha was taken to the Anand Hospital. The Medical Officer in-charge of that hospital was on leave. So Shana Madha was removed to Nadiad hospital where, after some treatment, Shana Madha was removed to the s. S. G. hospital Baroda for further treatme







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top