IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.S. SHINDE, ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, JJ.
Mohammed Noor son of Suleman – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 132 of 1984, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1984
Advocate Appeared : 19-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34, 307/34, 147, 148, 149, 304, 323, 307, 336, 440 and 452 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 161, 397, 401, (3) - Murder Offence – Appeal Against Conviction - A Parcha Bayan of injured (PW6) was recorded in which he alleged that today he, his father and his mother were inside their house and doors were closed from inside by latches - All of a sudden Bhanwar Lal Mali, Udairaj @ Katal Singh, Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Kailash Luhar, Suraj Mal, Shivji Lal Mali, Mangilal Gurjar after pelting stones on doors, entered inside house - Thereafter all these persons took them out and started beating them by sticks and gandasi - Udairaj inflicted injuries on right hand, Bhanwar Lal Babaji inflicted injury on his head by stick - He fell down due to injuries sustained on head - Thereafter he did not know who caused injury - He sustained injuries at two places of his left hand and on chest - Since he became unconscious, so he did not know who caused which injury - Police came on spot at time of occurrence - Held, In instant case, close scrutiny of evidence reveals that on basis of evidence, trial court has recorded finding of over implication of accused respondents No.4 to 12 - Only on basis of statement of PW6, accused respondents No. 4 to 12 have been acquitted and relying his testimony accused respondents No.1 to 3 were convicted for offences indicated above - Against judgment of conviction and sentence, they submitted D.B. Criminal Appeal before this Court and respondents No.2 and 3 died during pendency of appeal and same stood abated - So far as accused respondent No.1 is concerned, in criminal appeal filed by him, he has been acquitted by this Court by giving him benefit of doubt on basis of unreliable evidence of petitioner (PW6) - In instant case, considering entire evidence it is clear that impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality and perversity or error of jurisdiction to extent of acquittal of accused respondents No.4 to 12 so as to warrant any interference by this Court - So far as conviction and sentence of accused respondent No.1 is concerned, same has been quashed and set aside by this Court in criminal appeal filed by him - Hence, no further interference is required - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
1. Since both – criminal revision petition and appeal arise out of the common judgment dated 20.01.1984 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi (Raj.) [for short ‘the trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 74/1983, hence same are being heard and decided by this common judgment together.
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 20/1984:
2. In all twelve accused persons namely; Bhanwar Lal, Surajmal, Mohan, Hari Prasad, Heera Lal, Devi Lal, Prabhu, Raju @ Rajendra, Pokhar, Suraj Mal, Brij Mohan and Soji alias Shivji faced trial for the charges under sections 302/34, 307/34, 147, 148, 149 and 452 IPC. After trial, the trial Court convicted the accused appellants Bhanwar Lal, Suraj Mal and Soji @ Shivji Lal as under:-
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine | In default of Payment of Fine |
| 304 Part-II read with section 149 IPC | Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment | 500/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
| 147 IPC | Six months Simple Imprisonment | 100/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
| 452 IPC | Eighteen Months Rigorous Imprisonment | 200/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
| 323 read with section 149 IPC | Three Months Simple Imprisonment | 100/- | Two Months Simple Imprisonment |
3. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Rest of the accused persons namely; Mohan, Hari Prasad, Heera Lal, Devi Lal, Prabhu, Raju @ Rajendra, Pokhar, Suraj Mal and Brij Mohan, have been acquitted by the trial Court by giving them the benefit of doubt.
5. Accused appellants No. 1 to 3 have submitted the instant criminal appeal against the aforesaid judgment before this Court. Their sentence was suspended by this Court and the appeal was admitted for hearing and the same was kept in due course. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate informed this Court that the accused appellants No. 2 and 3 namely; Suraj Mal and Soji alias Shivji have expired, hence the appeal stood abated to their extent.
6. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.1983, a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P10) of the injured Mohammed Noor s/o Suleman (PW6) was recorded in which he alleged that today at about 11:30 PM he, his father Suleman and his mother Afizan were inside their house and the doors were closed from inside by latches. All of a sudden Bhanwar Lal Mali, Udairaj @ Katal Singh, Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, Kailash Luhar, Suraj Mal, Shivji Lal Mali, Mangilal Gurjar after pelting stones on the doors, entered inside the house. Thereafter all these persons took them out and started beating them by sticks and gandasi. Udairaj inflicted injuries on the right hand, Bhanwar Lal Babaji inflicted injury on his head by stick. He fell down due to the injuries sustained on the head. Thereafter he did not know who caused injury. He sustained injuries at two places of his left hand and on the chest. His father and mother also sustained injuries. Since he became unconscious, so he did not know who caused which injury. The Police came on the spot at the time of the occurrence. After seeing the Police, they ran away. Thereafter the Police took them to Bundi Hospital in their vehicle.
7. Upon this Parcha Bayan (Ex.P10), Crime No. 30/1983 was registered at Police Station Hindauli, District Bundi for the offences under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 336 and 440 IPC. During the course of investigation injured Hafizan expired on 30.03.1983 and on 04.04.1983 injured Suleman died. Hence offence under section 302 IPC was added. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against twelve accused persons for the offences under section 302/149, 307/149, 147, 148 and 452 IPC and charges were framed for the above offences. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter the statements of 16 witnesses were recorded and 39 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. And the accused were question
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Point of Law : Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that me....
The court established that a single reliable eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction, and that the trial court must not disregard credible evidence based on irrelevant considerations or minor dis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.