Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ And PRAKASH GUPTA, JJ.
SURESH KUMAR – Appellant
VS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.504, 323,826, 827/2007, 252/2014, D.B. CRIMINAL (JAIL) APPEAL NO.35/2008
Decided on : 16.10.2015
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 141, 14 , 5 , 19, 15, 16, 17 and 18 - Indian Penal Code,1908 - Section 120B - Arms Act - Section 3/25 149 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - - Sections 428,313 and 161 - Evidence Act - Section 9 - Appellant Suresh has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act he has been awarded six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof, to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment - Accused-appellant has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine - Accused-appellant has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120-B and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine - Accused-appellants and have been convicted for offence u/s.147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months each, for offence u/s.148 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.364 IPC to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment - They have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120B IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of each and in default – Held, Facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved - But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be - Must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court - Guilt of the accused-appellants not only on each of the primary facts have been individually proved, but such facts cumulatively lead to an irresistible inference of the guilt of accused-appellants. Each of the circumstances proved against the accused were put to them in their examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. but they failed to offer any plausible explanation therefore. In the common course of nature of elements and human conduct and their relations in the present case points to their guilt ruling out every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved and the chain of circumstances is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion - Appeals are accordingly dismissed
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Appeals at S.No.1 to 5 above are directed against the common judgement dated 2.2.2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.17/2006 has convicted the accused-appellants in the following manner:
“(i) Accused-appellant Suresh Kumar S/o Ganga Ram has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act he has been awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment;
(ii) Accused-appellant Ashwani Kumar has been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year;
(iii) Accused-appellant Aman has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120-B and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year;
(iv) Accused-appellants Anil Kumar @ Kaley and Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Prem Kumar have been convicted for offence u/s.147 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months each, for offence u/s.148 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.364 IPC to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with Section 149, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 120B IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each.
(v) Accused-appellants Rajveer Singh and Vipin @ Vikki have been convicted for offence u/s.302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.302 IPC read with 149 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 each and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each, for offence u/s.147 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and for offence u/s. 148 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment, for offence u/s.341 IPC sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for offence u/s.364 IPC sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each. Accused-appellant Vipin @ Vikki was also convicted for offence u/s.3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months' with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Appeal at S.No.6 above, bearing no.35/2008 is directed against the judgement dated 30.7.2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.5/2007 has convicted the accused-appellant-Mannu @ Manoj for offence u/s.147 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment; for offence u/s.148 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, for offence u/s.341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for offence u/s.364 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default whereof,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
