SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Raj) 1022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, DINESH MEHTA, JJ.
SHANKAR LAL S/O SH. PAT RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.590 of 2008
Decided on : 23-11-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Trilok Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP

Headnote:

Section 302 IPC - Conviction under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act - [302 IPC, 3/25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the court maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act based on the recovery of the pistol from the accused's house.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the accused, Shanker Lal, being convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Shanker Lal caused a gunshot injury to the deceased, Lilu Ram, while he was playing cards in a room. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the deceased's son and brother, as well as the recovery of a pistol from the accused's house.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the court maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act based on the recovery of the pistol from the accused's house.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's son and brother, the recovery of the pistol, and the absence of independent witnesses to support the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case for the offence under Section 302 IPC was doubtful due to the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, the court maintained the conviction for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act based on the trustworthy evidence of the recovery of the pistol.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC but maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

1. In this cr. appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the judgment dated 1.8.2008 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case NO.14/2006 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shanker Lal) is under challenge whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and following punishment was passed against him, which reads as under:-      

Under Section 302 IPC

Imprisonment for life

Under Section 3/25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act

Three years RI

Brief facts:

2. As per brief facts of the case on 22.12.2005, a written complaint (Ex.P/1) was field by Vinod Kumar S/o Leelu Ram (deceased) at Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh in which it was alleged that on 21.12.2005 at about 12.00 pm in the mid night, the mother of the complainant awake and asked him that still your father has not returned home and he might be playing cards at the house of Rameshwar, so you go there and call him back. Upon asking by mother, the complainant went to the house of Rameshwar while taking torch in hand due to darkness. As per complainant when he reached near the house of Rameshwar he saw that appellant Shanker S/o Path Ram was standing near the wall of house of Rameshwar, at that time, the complainant made query what you are doing here, at that time Shankar having entered his hand in the hole (Mori) of the wall and fired a gun shot and run away from the place of occurrence. The complainant immediately entered in the house and saw that due to gunshot injury blood was coming out from the body of his father Lilu Ram and his uncle Ram Kumar, Satpal S/o Sohan Lal were taking care of him. The complainant and his uncle Ram Kumar (PW—10) tried to lift deceased Lilu Ram but he died on spot. The complainant and his uncle Ram Kumar chased Shanker Lal to catch him but in between the way when they tried to caught him Shanker Lal gave threatening to them that if you will come near to me, then I will kill you by fire, due to fear of life, the complainant and his uncle came back.

3. According to the complainant a day before threatening was given by the appellant Shanker Lal to the complainant and his brother due to old enmity in between them, therefore the accused appellant Shanker Lal caused injury to his father deceased Lilu Ram when he was sitting in the room of the house of Rameshwar in the village. As per prosecution case, Rameshwar, uncle of complainant, Ram Kumar, Satpal and his father were playing cards in the room when incident took place.

4. Upon aforesaid complaint, formal FIR no.241 dated 22.12.2005 (Ex.p/2) was registered under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at 7’O Clock against Shnaker Lal at Police Station Bhirani.

5. After registration of above FIR, the SHO Police Station, Bhirani immediately went on spot and commenced investigation. First of all prepared site plan (Ex.P/4) and recorded details of place of occurrence vide Ex.P/4A and condition of dead body was recorded vide Ex.P/5 on spot in presence of two witnesses Krishan Kumar and Om Prakash. The “Panchayatnama” of the dead body was prepared in presence of five persons, namely Bhagirath, Kailash, Krishan Kumar, Vali Ram and Om Prakash by the Circle Inspector, Nohar.

6. The blood stained soil and simple soil were taken for further investigation from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P/7 and P/8, so also, one blood stained carpet (Dari) and blanket (Kambal) and 52 playing cards were also taken in possession vide Ex.P/9. The cloths Kamiz and Payjama of the deceased Lilu Ram were taken in possession vide Ex.P/20. The body of the deceased Lilu Ram was taken to the Government Hospital, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, where post mortem was conducted by the Senior Medical Officer, PW—1 Subhash Rajput,

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top