Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Mohammad Rafiq and Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Anil - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2017 Connected with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2017
Decided On : 02-07-2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - SECTION 9 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION - SECTION 133 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - POSTMORTEM REPORT - INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED - SECTION 373 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellants, Anil and Santosh, were convicted and sentenced by the trial court for the murder of Vivek Kumar Singh and causing injuries to Animesh Shah. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the recovery of a bloodstained knife from the possession of accused Anil.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved that the accused appellants had committed the offences of which they had been convicted. The court relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the medical evidence, and the recovery of the bloodstained knife.
Issues: 1. Whether the test identification parade was conducted properly and the evidence of identification was admissible. 2. Whether the accused appellants were present at the time of the occurrence. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved the intention of the accused to kill the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the test identification parade was conducted properly and the evidence of identification was admissible. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Motilal Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 647, which held that a test identification parade is not always necessary and that the court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of the law. 2. The court found that the presence of accused Anil at the time of the occurrence was established by the admission of co-accused Sheru Kashyap in reply to the notice issued under section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The court held that the prosecution had proved the intention of the accused to kill the deceased by relying on the postmortem report, which showed that the deceased had received 10 wounds with a knife.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the criminal appeals filed by the accused appellants and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - In both the criminal appeals the accused appellants-Anil and Santosh have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.6, Kota (Raj.) in Sessions C.I.S. No. 72/2013 whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as under:
(Accused Anil)
U/s. 302 IPC:
Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 307 IPC
Ten years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months.
U/s. 341 IPC
One month simple imprisonment.
U/s. 504 IPC
One year simple imprisonment.
U/s. 4/25 of the Arms Act One year simple imprisonment.
(Accused Santosh)
U/s. 302/34 IPC :
Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months simple imprisonment.
U/s. 307/34 IPC:
Ten years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months.
U/s. 341 IPC
One month simple imprisonment.
U/s. 504 IPC
One year simple imprisonment.
(All the sentences shall run concurrently)
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 16.05.2009 at 12:30 A.M. complainant Animesh Shah submitted a written report (Ex.P15) at M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, to the S.H.O. Police Station Nayapura, Kota to the effect that on 15.05.2009 at around 11:00 P.M. he along-with his friend Vivek Kumar Singh was going on a motorcycle for taking meal at Amar Punjabi Dhaba. He and Vivek were on one motorcycle and his two other friends Abhishek and Satyam were on another motorcycle and their motorcycle was going at some distance ahead to them. Near Bud Tiraha, three persons came on one motorcycle from their back side and started to abuse after stopping them without any reason. The complainant further mentioned that he was talking to Abhishek on phone. When he was making a call to Abhishek, during that period, the person who was sitting in the last inflicted a knife below on the abdomen of Vikek. Out of these three persons, one person who was sitting in the last and who attacked Vivek with the knife, while fleeing, he also made attack upon him. He tried to catch hold of the aforesaid person, but in the attempt, he could get a piece of T-shirt of the person only. The complainant further mentioned that he received knife injury on his back and head injury in assault with belt by other person. Neither, they have any enmity nor accused were known to them, however, he can identify the accused persons if they appear before him. Vivek was taken by them in an auto to the hospital for treatment, where during the course of treatment Vivek succumbed to knife injury. On the basis of aforesaid written report, an FIR No.234/2009 was registered at Police Station, Nayapura, Kota, for the offences under sections 302, 307, 504, 341/34 IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. After taking cognizance in the matter by the learned trial court against the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota, from where the case was transferred to the learned trial court. The learned trial court thereafter framed the charge against accused persons under sections 341, 504/34, 307 or 307/34, 302/34 IPC and also against accused Anil under section 4/25 of the Arms Act, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case recorded the statements of twenty witnesses and seventy six documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the accused appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence, the accused appellant did not produce any evidence. The learned tr
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
