Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2015
Decided On : 09-01-2018
Ankit Khandelwal, N.S Dhakad, Advocates for the appearing parties.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to kill the victim in order to establish the offence of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC).
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY - SECTIONS 148, 353, 307 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - SUMMARY OF FACTS, COURT FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, AND FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Taufiq Khan @ Dhanpat, was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 148, 353/149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, had fired shots at a police party while trying to escape after committing theft at a shop. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution's story was highly improbable as none of the police officials at whom shots were fired were injured, and none of the accused were injured even though the police fired back. The court held that the story that the shots were fired at the police party to commit murderous assaults seemed to be an exaggeration.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had fired shots at the police party with the intention to kill them (Section 307/149 IPC)? 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of rioting (Section 148 IPC) and assaulting the police party (Section 353/149 IPC)?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence of attempt to murder (Section 307/149 IPC) as the story of the police officials was highly improbable and lacked corroboration. However, the court found that the appellant was guilty of rioting (Section 148 IPC) and assaulting the police party (Section 353/149 IPC) as the evidence showed that he had fired shots in the air or otherwise assaulted the police party to deter them from apprehending him.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence of attempt to murder (Section 307/149 IPC) and acquitting the appellant of the same. However, the court upheld the conviction and sentence for the offences of rioting (Section 148 IPC) and assaulting the police party (Section 353/149 IPC).
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J —Two separate appeals bearing S.B. Criminal Appeal No.927 of 2015 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2015 preferred by same appellant Taufiq Khan @ Dhanpat pertaining to two separate Sessions Trial No.63 of 1996 and Sessions Trial No.62 of 1996 shall be decided separately but simultaneously strictly confining to separate evidence led in two separate trials.
2. The appellant, namely Taufiq Khan @ Dhanpat was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg District Bharatpur in a case arising out of First Information Report No.114/1992 registered at Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg District Bharatpur, in Sessions Trial Case No.62 of 1996 rendered impugned judgment dated 10.09.2015, wherein the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 148, 353/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Vide a separate order of even date, for the above said offences, the ld. trial Judge sentenced the appellant as under :-
"For offence u/s.148 I.P.C. appellant was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.
For offence u/s.353/149 I.P.C. appellant was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.
For offence u/s.307/149 I.P.C. appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently."
5. In the present appeal, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence be set aside, and the present appellant be acquitted of the charges.
6. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 8th and 9th of March, 1992 at around 01:10 A.M. when the Police party was following the appellant, who had committed theft at the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya, the appellant, along with co-accused had fired shots at A.S.I. Balloram, Jagdish and Gyansingh respectively. It is a further case of the prosecution that the Police party to save themselves sat on the ground and, thus, the shots had not hit the Police party and the accused taking benefit of darkness had escaped from the spot.
7. Teekam Chand Vaishya in whose shop theft was committed in proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. appeared as PW-2, whereas A.S.I. Balloram appeared as PW-3. Since the appellant had absconded, their statements under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Teekam Chand Vaishya (PW-2) when the accused was apprehended had expired and, hence, his statement under Section 299 Cr.P.C., as urged by the ld. Public Prosecutor, is to be read in evidence. The said statement of Teekam Chand recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is part of the record. Anand Prakash (PW-1) has deposed in the Court that on 09.03.1992 he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector. At 01:10 A.M. he was informed by Shyam Lal, a Watchman that some accused had entered into the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya. Upon this, he, along with A.S.I. Balloram, Constable Jagdish, Constable Gyansingh and Pooran Chand reached at the shop. From a distance of 100 meters of the shop of Teekam Chand, the accused starting firing shots at the Police, who were in the uniform. It is stated that Constable - Gyan Singh (PW-8) also fired, in defence of the Police party and the accused ran away from the spot.
8. It is undeniable fact that Balloram (PW-3) in the Jail had identified the appellant as the one who had come to the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya and had fired shots at the Police party.
9. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, is un
