Back
2000 Supreme(Raj) 624
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
Paramjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2000
Decided On : 08/22/2000
M.L. Garg, for the Appellant
Panney Singh, Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents
The admissibility of identification in court and the application of Section 397/34 IPC were central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Identification - Criminal Law - 394 IPC, 397/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the admissibility of identification in court, the medical evidence, and the application of Section 397/34 IPC. The court held that the identification in court for the first time when the accused is not known to the person identifying is of little importance. The judgment also clarifies the application of Section 397/34 IPC and the requirement for convicting a person under Section 394 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for robbery and causing hurt under 394 and 397/34 IPC. The victim was beaten and his taxi was stolen by the accused. The medical evidence confirmed grevious injuries. The identification of the accused in court was challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the identification in court to be of little importance and relied on ample evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The court clarified the application of Section 397/34 IPC and confirmed the conviction under Section 394 IPC.
Issues: Admissibility of identification in court, application of Section 397/34 IPC, and requirement for convicting a person under Section 394 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The identification in court for the first time when the accused is not known to the person identifying is of little importance. Section 397/34 IPC cannot be applied constructively, and the conviction under Section 394 IPC requires the accused to have caused hurt.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under Section 397/34 IPC and confirming the conviction under Section 394 IPC.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant in the following manner :Name of accused Offence u/s Sentence awarded Paramjeet Singh 394 IPC Four Years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I.
397/34 IPC Seven years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows:-On 10-3-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. PW3 Ved Prakash gave a Parcha-bayan, Ex. P/9 while he was in Hospital, to PW6 Phularam stating that he has a Maruti Car bering No. DBD 4559, Taxi (hereinafter referred to as the Taxi) and on 9-3-1998 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was standing at the Taxi Stand of Abhor (Haryana), two persons came there and asked him that they wanted to go to Chak IC in Rajasthan and he allowed these two persons to sit in the Taxi and the fare agreed to was Rs. 400/-. Out of these two persons, one person sat with him meaning thereby nearby his seat & Ors., person sat in the back seat of the Taxi. They first went to Shivpur, from where they asked about the way of IC and in the midnight when they reached near the Punjab pool, then, the person, who was sitting behind his seat, took up iron rod and gave blow on his head and at that time when he was being beaten by the person, who was sitting behind his seat, another person sitting nearby him, caught him and thereafter, both threw him out of the Taxi and took away the Taxi and he was severaly injured and then, he was taken to the hospital, where he was admitted. He was got medically examined. On this Parchabayan Ex. P/9, FIR Ex. P/13 was chalked out and police started investigation. During investigation, PW6 Phularam came to know that these two persons are in lockup in Police Station Sapla District Rohtak. Then, he went there and met Mathu Ram. ASI and he was told by him that a Car was seized under Section 102, Cr.P.C. and the number of that Car is the same, which belongs to PW3 Ved Prakash. He recovered the Car through Ex. P/12. On being interrogated, it was told that the names of these two persons from whose possession Car in question was seized, are accused Paramjeet Singh and Siraj Ali.
Note:-That accused Siraj Ali has been declared absconder and whole proceedings have been conducted
in his absence. These two accused were arrested through Ex. P/21 and Ex. P/22. During investigation, accused Siraj Ali on 12-4-1998 gave information to PW6 Phularam about the place from where the Taxi was taken and the place where PW3 Ved Prakash was beaten. Similarly, accused appellant also gave information about the recovery of the iron rod, papers of the Taxi and driving license of Siraj Ali and that information was recorded in Ex. P/24 and pursuant to that information, articles were recovered through Ex. P/26. After investigation, police submitted challan against both the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar on 31-8-1999 framed charge under Section 394 and 397, IPC against the accused appellant Paramjeet Singh, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. No evidence was produced in defence, but two documents were exhibited by the accused-appellant in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar through his Judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as stated above, holding inter-alia :
1. That even in absence of identification parade, statement of PW3 Ved Prakash and PW9 Kewal Krish
