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

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ.
Surendra Kumar - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 398 of 2008 and 639 of 2009
Decided On : 21-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.R. Bhari and T.R.S. Sodha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Anil Joshi, P.P.

Headnote:

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B, 302/34,201 and Section 304-A – Arms Act – Section 3/25 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 and 437-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Appeal against Conviction – Claim that Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest both accused because it was proposed to subject them to test identification – Held, Lack of direct evidence about motive not detract from credit-worthiness of prosecution against Surendra Kumar – Undisputed that no motive has been attributed by the prosecution to the accused for committing the murder of deceased-driver – Flared up between passengers and deceased driver just before incident, which led accused passenger Surendra Kumar firing fatal gunshot at driver deceased Mohd Hussain – Lack of evidence regarding motive and common intention not be safe to convict appellant Usha for charge of murdering deceased – Criminal Appeal No. 639/2009 allowed and Appeal No. 398/2008 dismissed. (Paras: 54 to 60)

Facts of the case:

Appeal against Conviction – Claim that Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest both accused because it was proposed to subject them to test identification.

Findings of the court:

Lack of direct evidence about motive not detract from credit-worthiness of prosecution against Surendra Kumar – Undisputed that no motive has been attributed by the prosecution to the accused for committing the murder of deceased-driver – Flared up between passengers and deceased driver just before incident, which led accused passenger Surendra Kumar firing fatal gunshot at driver deceased Mohd. Hussain – Lack of evidence regarding motive and common intention not be safe to convict appellant Usha for charge of murdering deceased.

Result: Criminal Appeal No. 639/2009 allowed and Appeal No. 398/2008 dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of an incident dated 28.09.2006, in which Mohd. Hussain, a taxi driver, was murdered near the Meja Dam, District Bhilwara. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed two separate charge-sheets because appellants herein, i.e. Surendra Kumar and Smt. Usha Joshi, were arrested earlier, whereas, the accused Mukesh @ Sonu was absconding. The trials of Surendra Kumar and Smt. Usha Joshi were held jointly, whereas, the case of the accused Mukesh @ Sonu arrested later was tried separately. The Sessions Case No. 9/2007 registered against the accused appellants Surendra Kumar and Smt. Usha Joshi was decided vide judgment dated 17.04.2008, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara convicted and sentenced them as under : Name of the appellant Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded

Surendra Kumar and Smt. Usha Joshi

Section 302/34 IPC

Life term imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment

 

Section 201 IPC

 

Five years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment

Surendra Kumar

Section 3/25 Arms Act

Three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeals are noted hereinbelow.

The complainant Nasir Hussain (P.W. 3) lodged a written report (Ex. P/3) at the Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara on 29.09.2006 at 8.15 a.m. alleging inter alia that his brother Mohd. Hussain, aged 48 years, resident of House No. 8, Barkat Colony, Savina Kheda, Udaipur was engaged as a driver on the Indica car No. RJ-27-1C-2125 attached with one Arawali Tourists Agency. One Arvind Singh Bishnoi, resident of Bhilwara approached his brother to take the Indica car on hire on the previous day, i.e. 28.09.2006. A woman and another man were accompanying him. In the night at about 10 p.m., the Indica car, driven by Mohd. Hussain collided with an electric pole near Meja Dam and turned turtle, due to which, the complainant's brother Mohd. Hussain died at the spot, whereas the woman and the two male passengers, who might have been injured, abandoned the car and went away. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No. 191/2006 (Ex. P/37) was registered at the Police Station Mandal for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and the investigation commenced.

3. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the place of the incident and prepared the site inspection plan (Ex. P/5) noticing that two cartridges were lying nearby the place where the car had overturned. Blood was spread around at numerous places. The empty cartridge cases were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/6). The Indica car, which met with the accident was taken into possession. Blood stained and plain soil was collected from the spot. When the car was minutely examined, a bullet piece was found embedded in its steering, which was extracted and seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/11). The Investigating Officer made enquiries from the employees of the Dak Bungalow, Meja Dam, near which, the accident had taken place, namely, Ladu Singh (P.W. 6) and Gog Singh (P.W. 9), who stated that they were working as Guards on night duty on the Meja Dam Dak Bungalow. They saw a car coming from towards Bhilwara Kotadi at about 10 o'clock. The car met with an accident. The witnesses heard two to three explosions. Two boys and a girl came towards them and told them that the car met with an accident and had overturned and then, they went away.

4. The body of Mohd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top