Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Rizwan son of Shri Babudeen - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
SB Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2015
Decided On : 23-03-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Sahni
For the Respondent: Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
A person who is jointly concerned in committing robbery is liable to be punished for robbery even if he did not actually cause hurt to the victim.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - SECTION 394 IPC - ROBBERY - SECTION 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC - HURT, GRIEVOUS HURT, ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 5/27 ARMS ACT - ARMS ACT - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT: The court discussed the following acts and sections: - Section 394 IPC: Robbery - Section 324/34 IPC: Hurt with common intention - Section 326/34 IPC: Grievous hurt with common intention - Section 307/34 IPC: Attempt to murder with common intention - Section 5/27 Arms Act: Punishment for possessing arms without license. KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, THEIR INTERPRETATIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION: - Section 394 IPC: The court interpreted Section 394 IPC to mean that not only the person who actually causes hurt in committing robbery, but also any other person jointly concerned in it is liable to be similarly punished. - Section 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC: The court held that the appellant was not liable to be separately convicted for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC and he was liable to be convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC only. MAIN LEGAL POINT: - A person who is jointly concerned in committing robbery is liable to be punished for robbery even if he did not actually cause hurt to the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34, and 394 IPC, and Section 5/27 of the Arms Act. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the identification parade was not conducted properly and that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification parade was conducted properly and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in the incident. However, the court held that the appellant was not liable to be separately convicted for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC and he was liable to be convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC only.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification parade was conducted properly? 2. Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the case? 3. Whether the appellant was liable to be separately convicted for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC and he was liable to be convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC only?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification parade was conducted properly as there was nothing on record to show that the appellant was shown to the complainant before the identification parade was conducted. 2. The court held that the appellant was not falsely implicated in the case as there was sufficient evidence to prove that he was involved in the incident. 3. The court held that the appellant was not liable to be separately convicted for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 IPC and he was liable to be convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC only, as per the provisions of Section 394 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The appellant was acquitted for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, and 307/34 IPC, but his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 394 IPC was maintained and upheld.
Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
1. The accused-appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota in Sessions Case No.80/2012 whereby the learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days, for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days, for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also holding him guilty for offence under Section 394 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed that all the substantive sentences would run concurrently. It is to be noted that along with appellant, co-accused-Shri Shankarlal was also tried and was similarly convicted and sentenced and the appeal filed by co-accused-Shri Shankarlal was dismissed as not pressed by the High Court vide order dated 16.5.2016 by the reason that he has already served the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that “Parcha-Bayan” of one-Shri Deepak Meena was recorded on 6.11.2008 by Shri Digvijay Singh S.I. Police Station Kunhari, Kota when the he was undergoing treatment at MBS Hospital, Kota in which it was alleged by the complainant that on 2.11.2008 in the night at about 10 p.m. he was going by motorcycle and when he reached in front of Saint John School, four persons came on a motorcycle and intercepted him as a result thereof he fell down and one of them fired at him in order to cause his death and the fire shot by that person after tearing through his hand hit and inflicted injury on the left side of his chest. It was further alleged that the person who fired at him was of the age of about 20-25 years whom he can identify if he comes before him. In the “Parcha-Bayan” it was further stated by him that the persons involved in the incident took his motorcycle along with them. On the basis of Parcha-Bayan, FIR No.325/2008 for offences under Sections 394, 307 read with Section 34 IPC came to be registered at Police Station Kunhari, Kota and during the course of investigation appellant was arrested in this case from Central Jail, Kota on 5.8.2009 when he was in judicial custody in some other criminal case. Identification parade of appellant was conducted on 11.8.2009. It is to be noted that, apart from appellant, co-accused-Shri Shankarlal, juvenile-Shri Chetan Meena and one Shri Jahid were also found involved in the incident. After investigation charge-sheet for offences under Sections 307, 394, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 5/27 of the Arms Act was filed against Shri Shankarlal and for offences under Sections 307, 394, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC was filed against the appellant whereas charge-sheet was filed against juvenile-Shri Chetan Meena before the Juvenile Justice Board. Investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. against Shri Jahid. Learned trial Court framed charge for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34, 394 IPC and for offence under Section 5/27 of the Arms Act against co-accused-Shri Shankarlal whereas charge was framed against the appellant for offences under Sections 324/34, 326/34, 307/34 and for offence under Section 394 IPC. In order to prove t
