Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Kailash Dhakan and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 613, 612 and 652 of 2014
Decided On : 06-08-2019
The court upheld the conviction of appellants Kailash Dhakan, Balbha Ram, Sikander, and Shahjad for the murder of Bhanwar Sinodiya, while acquitting appellants Madan Lal and Heera Lal due to insufficient evidence against them. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the deceased being taken away in a Bolero vehicle by the appellants, as well as the recovery of weapons and the deceased's body from the vehicle. The court dismissed the defense's arguments regarding discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as the color of the Bolero vehicle and the admissibility of call detail records, finding them to be non-fatal to the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
Bhanwar Sinodiya was abducted and murdered. The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to murder Bhanwar Sinodiya due to a land dispute. The appellants were arrested and charged with murder, criminal conspiracy, and possession of illegal weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proven its case against the appellants Kailash Dhakan, Balbha Ram, Sikander, and Shahjad beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the deceased being taken away in a Bolero vehicle by the appellants, as well as the recovery of weapons and the deceased's body from the vehicle. The court dismissed the defense's arguments regarding discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as the color of the Bolero vehicle and the admissibility of call detail records, finding them to be non-fatal to the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as the color of the Bolero vehicle and the admissibility of call detail records, were fatal to the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proven its case against the appellants Kailash Dhakan, Balbha Ram, Sikander, and Shahjad beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the deceased being taken away in a Bolero vehicle by the appellants, as well as the recovery of weapons and the deceased's body from the vehicle. 2. The court held that the discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as the color of the Bolero vehicle and the admissibility of call detail records, were not fatal to the prosecution's case. The court found that the eyewitnesses' testimonies were credible and that the recovery of the weapons and the deceased's body from the Bolero vehicle corroborated their testimony.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of appellants Kailash Dhakan, Balbha Ram, Sikander, and Shahjad for the murder of Bhanwar Sinodiya, while acquitting appellants Madan Lal and Heera Lal due to insufficient evidence against them.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this order, above mentioned appeals would be disposed of.
2. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 28 dated 9th March, 2011 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer under Section 365 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, offence under Section 302 IPC was added after the murder of the victim.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, as per the FIR, is that on 9th March, 2011 at about 12 noon, complainant had reached Saini Dhaba, Rupangarh Road, Bye-pass Sursura alongwith Bhanwar Sinodiya. Balbha Ram, who was sitting in a Henna colour un-numbered Bolero vehicle signaled Bhanwar to come towards him. Bhanwar Sinodiya got down from his own vehicle and went towards the Bolero vehicle. They talked for some time and thereafter Bhanwar sat in the Bolero with Balbha and complainant Bhagchand was asked to follow them. However, the Bolero vehicle was driven at a fast speed
4. On Mega Highway and they lost sight of the vehicle. Abdul Gaffar called Bhanwar on his mobile phone but he did not reply. Thereafter, complainant made a phone call to Balbharam and he said that they were coming back in 5 minutes. When the complainant again made a phone call, he said that they are coming back within fifteen minutes. Complainant told Balbha Ram that he wanted to talk to Bhanwar. Balbha Ram said that he would make him to talk to Bhanwar and disconnected the phone. Thereafter both the phones were switched off. They had searched for Bhanwar Sinodiya but could not locate him. Hence, the FIR was lodged on the basis of complainant Bhagchand.
5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B and 364 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 65 witnesses. Appellants, when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
7. Trial court vide impugned judgment dated 11.4.2014 convicted appellant Kailash Dhakan qua offence punishable under Section 302/120B IPC. Appellants Shahjad and Sikander A.N. were convicted qua the offence punishable under Section 302/120B, 364/120B IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act. Appellant Balbha Ram was convicted under Section 302/120B, 364/120B/34 IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act. Appellant Madan Lal was convicted under Section 302/120, 364/120B/34 IPC. Appellant Heera Lal was convicted qua the offence punishable under Section 302/120B and 364/120B/34 IPC.
8. Vide impugned order, appellant Kailash Dhakan was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
9. Appellants Shahjad and Sikander A.N. were ordered to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/120B IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. They were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364/120B/24 IPC with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Under Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, they would further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
10. Appellant Balbha Ram was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 302/120B IPC. It was further ordered that in case of default of payment of fine, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Sec
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
