Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
R.S. Chauhan and Atul Kumar Jain, JJ.
Jhabarmal & Ors. – Appellant
vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.336/2011
And
Nema Mali @ Nemi Chand – Appellant
vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.337/2011
and
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
vs.
Hariprasad @ Hari Banuda & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.898/2011
Decided On : March 04, 2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harendra Sinsingwar & Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, for accused Jhabarmal, Mukesh Khud, Kishore Kumar Nehra, Rajesh Kumar Burdak.
Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. R.M. Sharma, for accused Hari Prasad @
Hari Banuda, Rampal Khinchad, Govind Ram and Bajrang Lal.
Mr. V.R. Bajwa with Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya & Mr. Amar Kumar, for Mukesh Sauthalia @ Mukesh Bajia.
Mr. Anoop Dhand, for Mr. Nema Mali @ Nemi Chand.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, for accused Bhanwar Singh.
Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nirmal Kumar on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for the complainant.
Headnote:(a) Penal Code, Secs. 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 120-B — Criminal conspiracy — Meaning and scope — Requirement of physical presence — Held — The offence of criminal conspiracy consists of a meeting of mind of two or more persons for agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means, and performance of an act in terms thereof — In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy the conspirator commits several offences, then all of them will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not actively participated in commission of the offences. (Paras 139 to 140)
¼d½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 302] 452] 147] 148] 149] 120&ch & vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= & vFkZ vkSj O;kfIr & 'kkjhfjd mifLFkfr dh vko';drk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= ds vijk/k esa nks ;k nks ls vf/kd O;fDr;ksa ds fnekx dk feyu lfEefyr gksrk gS tks fdlh voS/k d`R; djus ;k djkus ;k voS/k lk/kuksa ls d`R; djus ;k djkus vkSj mu fucU/kuksa esa d`R; dk lEiknu djus gsrq lger gksrs gS & vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= ds vuqlj.k esa "kM+;U=dkjh vusd vijk/k dkfjr djrs gS rks muesa ls lHkh mu vijk/kksa ds fy, nk;h gksaxs] Hkys gh muesa ls dqN us lØh; :i ls mu vijk/kksa esa Hkkx ugha fy;k gksA
¼in la[;k 139 ls 140½
(b) Penal Code, Secs. 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 120-B — Power of the appellate court to reassess the evidence while dealing with the judgement of acquittal — Held — The appellate Court will not interfere with a judgement of acquittal where the view taken by the trial Court is plausible one — Even if there are two views of the evidence produced and one of them has been adopted by trial Court, the appellate Court will not interfere even in such a situation — Reliance placed on the law laid down in the case of Sudershan Kumar (2014 14 Scale 276) by Apex Court. (Paras 158 to 161)
Appeals dismissed.
¼[k½ n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 302] 452] 147] 148] 149] 120&[k & nks"keqfDr ds fu.kZ; dk laO;ogkj djrs le; lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu djus gsrq vihyh; U;k;ky; dh 'kfDr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vihyh; U;k;ky; nks"k eqfDr ds fu.kZ; esa ogka gLr{ksi ugha djsxk tgka fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fy;k x;k n`f"Vdks.k Lohdk;Z gks & Hkys gh is'k fd;s x;s lk{; ds nks n`f"Vdks.k gks vkSj muesa ls ,d n`f"Vdks.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk viuk;k x;k gS] rks vihyh; U;k;ky; ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh gLr{ksi ugha djsxk & loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk lqn'kZu dqekj ds ekeys esa vf/kdfFkr fof/k ij fo'okl fd;k ¼2014 14 bLdsy 276½A
vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 158 ls 161½
R.S. Chauhan, J.
Challenging the judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar, three appeals have been filed before this court. While Jhabarmal, Mukesh Khud, Hariprasad @ Hari Banuda, Mukesh Sauthalia, Kishore Kumar Nehra, Rampal Khinchad, Rajesh Kumar Burdak, Govindram, Bajranglal, Nema Mali @ Nemi Chand have collectively filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No.336/2011, Nema Mali @ Nemi Chand has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No.337/2011. Meanwhile, aggrieved by the acquittal of Hariprasad @ Hari Banuda, Mukesh Saunthaliya and Nema Mali @ Nemichand for offence u/s.120B IPC, and by total acquittal of Vijaypal @ Birju, Richhpal Singh, Mohd. Amin Pathan, Jai Singh, Manjeet Singh, Daulatram @ Daula Jat, Bhanwar Singh and Roopdan @ Dungardan @ Baji, the State of Rajasthan has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No.898/2011. Since these three appeals emanate from the same judgment, the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
i. Accused-appellant, Jhabarmal:
U/s.302 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.452 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.147 IPC: One year simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.200/-, and directed to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.148 IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
ii. Accused-appellant, Mukesh Khud:
U/s.302 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.452 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.147 IPC: One year simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.200/-, and directed to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.148 IPC: Two years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
iii. Accused-appellant, Hariprasad @ Hari Banuda:
U/s.302/120B IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
However, acquitted for offence U/s.120B IPC.
iv. Accused-appellant, Mukesh Sonthaliya:
U/s.302/120B IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
However, acquitted for offence U/s.120B IPC.
v. Accused-appellant, Kishore Kumar Nehra:
U/s.302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.452 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.147 IPC: One year simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.200/-, and directed to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment in default thereof.
However, acquitted for offence U/s.148 IPC.
vi. Accused-appellant, Rampal Khinchad:
U/s.302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.452/149 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/-, and directed to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.
U/s.147 IPC: One year simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.200/-, and directed to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment in default thereof.
Howev
