Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 1174
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, Atul Kumar Jain, JJ.
Mohabbat Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2005.
Decided On : 26-03-2014
For the State: Vishnu Kaclihwalia, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:Gaurav Singh for Vineet Jain, Advocates.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 302/34, 341 and 341/34 – No previous enmity between deceased and accused `M' – Accused `M' caused repeated stab injuries to deceased and the other accused caught hold of the deceased – Common intention to cause death is also established – Story of the defence is neither probable nor plausible – No illegality in the order of conviction – Appeal is dismissed.
(1) Mohabbat Singh Section 302 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's R.l. Section 341/34 I.P.C. : One month's S.l. (2) Chhagan Singh Section 302/34 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year R.l. Section 341/34 I.P.C. : One month's S.l. (3) Khet Singh Section 302/34 I.P.C. : Life imprisonment with fine of L 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's R.l. Section 341 I.P.C. : One month's S.l.
(1) that the prosecution has not proved its story beyond reasonable doubt and so that benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellants.
(2) that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and so the parrot-like statements of the witnesses should have been discarded by the Trial Court.
(3) that the telephonic information given from Barloot Hospital to the S.H.O. by the complainant should be treated as F.I.R. and since that information does not discloses the names of the accused, so the prosecution story should not have been accepted.
(4) that F.I.R. Ex. P-8 reached the concerned Magistrate Court on the next date, i.e. 13.11.2004 at 8.00 P.M. in the night and no explanation for the delay has been given by the prosecution, so on this count also, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants.
(5) that the prosecution had relied upon all the interested witnesses who were of the same caste and so conviction cannot be sustained.
(6) that no blood was found on the clothes of PW-3 Shaitan Singh, PW-7 Om Singh and PW-9 Doongar Singh, though they have stated that they had put the body of the deceased in the car after the occurrence. On this count also, the benefit of doubt is claimed by the accused-appellants.
(7) that no person from the locality of the bus stand have turned up as a witness, causing suspicion in the prosecution story.
(8) that the recovery of knife made from the accused is from an open place and further more, the knife was not shown to the doctor to ascertain that injuries caused in the present case was from that weapon or not.
(9) that the defence story has wrongly been discarded by the Trial Court.
(10) that no role to the two other accused-persons has been assigned by any of the witnesses and so Khet Singh and Chhagan Singh have also wrongly been convicted by the Trial Court.
