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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
BOTH LAL GURJAR — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 38 of 2013 and 879, 997 of 2012
Decided on : 28-08-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.S. Hasan, Advocate, Shrey Gahrana, Rajesh Choudhary, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: R.S. Raghav, Adv.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code - Section 148, 302/149, 307/149 read with Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 and Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 - As long as the witnesses are confronted with there own statement in cross-examination, no conviction can be made on the basis of any Statement made under Section 161 CrPC - Held, conviction is set aside and matter remanded back to trial court for fresh order.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

These appeals are directed against judgment dated 19.09.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 148 IPC to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment; for offence under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years' imprisonment; for offence under Section 307/149 IPC to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 341 to one month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2008, complainant Sujan son of Kashiram (P.W.2) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-37) to ASI, Shri Ramzan Mohammad (P.W.23) at Maal Moja Salotiya, addressing in the said report to SHO, Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar alleging an incident to have taken place on the same day at about 12.00 P.M. On the basis of the above mentioned report, the police registered a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 147/2008 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation injured Shyam Lal and injured Balu @ Balaram died during treatment and Section 302 IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against accused persons including the present accused-appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 302 and 201 I.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi. The offences being exclusively triable by court of Sessions, thereby the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar and ultimately the case was transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar for trial. The trial court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 341 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 28 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they are innocent. In defence, no witness was produced and 12 documents were got exhibited. Upon completion of trial, learned trial court vide judgment dated 19.09.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated here-in-above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants have addressed the Court on the manner in which the learned trial court has recorded finding of conviction against six accused-appellants. It is argued that there were in all 12 accused named in the FIR and it was additionally alleged by the informant that many other accused were with them. Learned counsel have referred to discussion made by the trial court in para no. 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment where the learned trial court has relied on the statement of Sujan (P.W.2) informant and injured eye witness, Kishan Lal (P.W.3) and then referred to para no. 21 of the judgment where the trial court has disbelieved Tufan (P.W.4); Nanda @ Nandlal (P.W.10) and Rajaram (P.W.24) as eye witnesses. It is contended that the police did not file charge sheet against six accused persons against whom specific allegation was made in the FIR for using weapons such as firearm and sword whereas there were no corresponding firearm injuries. It is argued that the kind of injuries which the dece









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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top