Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA AND J.K. RANKA, JJ.
Ramji and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondents
D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 339 of 2005
Decided On : 17-03-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 148, 452, 307/149, 302/149 IPC - DELAY IN REACHING SPECIAL REPORT - OVER IMPLICATION OF ACCUSED - BENEFIT OF DOUBT:
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Ramji and Shiv Singh were convicted by the Trial Court for offenses under Sections 148, 452, 307/149, and 302/149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, had fired shots at the complainant's wife, Bhanwarpati, resulting in her death, and injured the complainant, Gunna Meena. However, the principal accused, Nihal, was acquitted in a subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the appellants were not attributed any specific role in the occurrence and that the shots allegedly fired by them had caused no injuries. The Court also noted that the witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution and had not named the appellants or the principal accused, Nihal, in their subsequent statements.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants could be convicted under Section 149 IPC in the absence of a conviction of the principal accused, Nihal? 2. Whether the delay in reaching the special report affected the prosecution's case? 3. Whether the appellants were victims of over-implication?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the subsequent acquittal of the principal accused did not affect the applicability of Section 149 IPC to the appellants. However, the Court emphasized that any subsequent event or deposition of witnesses could not be considered as evidence. 2. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, which held that delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. required an explanation from the prosecution. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to explain the delay in the present case. 3. The Court concluded that the appellants were victims of over-implication, considering the lack of specific roles attributed to them, the absence of injuries caused by their alleged shots, and the delay in reaching the special report.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by Ramji alias Ramjilal and Shiv Singh, to challenge the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2005 rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3 (Fast Track), Dholpur, whereby appellants have been convicted for offence u/sec. 148, 452, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC. In the appeal the appellants have also assailed the order of sentence of even date whereby appellants were sentenced as under:-
"u/sec. 148 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment
u/sec. 452 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
U/sec. 307/149 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
U/sec. 302/149 IPC: Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently."
2. Criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex. P. 1) presented by Gunna Meena (P.W. 2) before Ranjit Singh (P.W. 10), who was then posted as SHO Police Station Sarmathura. SI, Ranjit Singh (P.W. 10) deposed before the Court that on 3.11.2003 when he was posted at Police Station Sarmathura, Gunna Meena (P.W. 2) appeared before him and had presented written report to him. It will be apposite here to reproduce the English translation of written report (Ex. P. 1), as under:-
"To
SHO sahab,
Police Station Sarmathura.
Sir,
It is submitted that I am a resident of Manpura. Today on 3.11.2003 at about 10:00 P.M., I after having taken my dinner was preparing to retire for sleep, then Nihala, Narain Singh S/o. Gansibbu, Sriniwas son of Narain Singh, Atra son of Nihal Singh, caste Meena resident of Deewanpura, and Ramji S/o. Lalaram caste Meena resident of Manpur and Shiv Singh Meena resident of Paveni, came. Nihal Singh was armed with a country made pistol, whereas others were armed with guns. All started giving abuses. I restrained them not to abuse. Due to fear I was going inside my house and my wife Bhanwarpati was close to the door. Then Nihal fired a gunshot which abrasing my left armpit and rib, had hit my wife Bhanwarpati at the chest. My wife died at the spot. Hearing noise of gunshots and the cries my brother Mangilal and nephew Ramlakhan came to the spot running. Seeing them, Nihal went to the roof of my house. My brother caught hold of Nihal. Nihal in order to commit murder, fired another shot at my brother Mangilal. Thereafter scuffle ensued and accused alighted from the roof and ran towards the jungle. I have brought dead body of my wife to police station. I am presenting report. Legal action be taken."
3. A perusal of the above written report reveals that all the shots have been fired by Nihal. Though it is stated that other accused also were armed with guns, no overt role is attributed to the present two appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had filed an application u/sec. 391 Cr.P.C. for placing on record subsequent judgment whereby principal accused Nihal was tried and acquitted. Said application was allowed by the coordinate Bench. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court subsequent to the conviction of the present appellants reveals that Nihal was acquitted by the Trial Court primarily for the reason that witnesses to the present case have not deposed against Nihal. They turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that the accused were having muffled faces, hence they had not seen them.
5. Mr. Ashwin Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that since the principal accused has been acquitted u/sec. 149 IPC cannot be applied qua the appellants.
6. We are unable to accept this argument. Any subsequent event or deposition of the witnesses cannot be taken into consideration. As per sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, only previous statement ma
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
