Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 917
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Narendra Kumar Jain
Bajrang Singh @ Guddu S/o Shri Bhairon Singh Gehlot - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2002
Decided On : 04/03/2006
Shri Mohammad Anees, for Shri Abdul Gaffar, for the Accused-Appellant.
Shri B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The sufficiency of evidence for conviction and the distinction of the case from acquitted co-accused were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Identification Parade - Criminal Law - Section 394, Section 397, IPC - Summary: The court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 394 and Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense contended that the absence of an identification parade and the acquittal of co-accused raised doubts. The prosecution argued that there was sufficient evidence for conviction. The court found the recovery of gold-ornament and Jeep, based on the accused's information, to be proved. It distinguished the case from the acquitted co-accused and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 394 and Section 397 of the IPC for a robbery at the house of the complainant. The defense raised concerns about the absence of an identification parade and the acquittal of co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the recovery of gold-ornament and Jeep, based on the accused's information, to be proved. It distinguished the case from the acquitted co-accused and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the absence of an identification parade, doubts raised by the acquittal of co-accused, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery of gold-ornament and Jeep, based on the accused's information, was proved, and distinguished the case from the acquitted co-accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant.
N.K. Jain, J.-The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its Judgment and order dated 06.08.2002, in Sessions Case No. 41/2002, convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Bajrang Singh @ Guddu as under:-
Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment 397, IPC To seven years rigorous imprisonment.
394, IPC To seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that PW. 9 Manju Rao wife of Shri Mahendra Kumar lodged a written report (Exhibit P-5) at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that she resides at Plot No. 142-A, Shakti Nagar, Sodala. On 28.02.1997 at about 8.30 PM to 9.00 PM. three miscreants entered in her house. The description of the miscreants was mentioned in the report. They were having knives in their hands. It was alleged that on the tips of knives they committed robbery in her house and ran away. On the basis of this information, the police registered FIR No. 115/97 under Section 394, IPC and started investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against three accused-persons, namely Kan Singh, Suraj Mal and the present accused-appellant Bajrang Singh, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur, under Sections 394 and 397, IPC, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. During trial of the case, the accused-appellant Bajrang Singh absconded, therefore, vide order dated 30.03.2000 he was declared absconded and standing warrant was issued and trial commenced against remaining two accused-persons, namely Kan Singh and Suraj Mal. The Special Judge, Sati Niwaran, Rajasthan, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 129/1998, vide its Judgment and order dated 15.05.2000, acquitted the accused-persons, namely, Kan Singh and Suraj Mal. The accused-appellant Bajrang Singh was arrested and he was tried separately. He was charged with the offence under Sections 394 and 397, IPC. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, CrPC, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecution. No evidence was produced in defence.
4. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above.
5. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant contended that after arrest of the accused-appellant the identification parade was not conducted and in absence of identification parade he could not have been convicted for the above offences. He also contended that in the case of co-accused Kan Singh and Suraj Mal an identification parade was conducted but still both were acquitted by the trial Court. In the present case it is clear from the statement of PW. 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer, that no identification parade was conducted. He further contended that the recovery of the gold-ornament (rakhdi) and Jeep, alleged to have been used in the offence, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt as both the independent witnesses, PW. 1 Satya Narain and PW. 2 Ram Dhan, have been declared hostile by the prosecution and only on the basis of the statement of PW. 16 Vijay Singh, the Investigating Officer, the conviction of the accused-appellant cannot be based. He lastly contended that the co-accused Kan Singh and Suraj Mal, both, have been acquitted, therefore, the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the present accused-appellant as the case of all the three accused-persons was similar.
.6. The learned Counsel for
