Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Bhuwan Goyal, JJ.
Shibbaram S/o Shri Budharam and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2020
Decided On : 31-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 326, 307 and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 164 – Murder offence - Unlawful assembly - Appeal against conviction - Appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge whereby accused appellants have been convicted for offences – Held, All accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly and armed with firearms, lathis and axes, attacked complainant side - Thus, offence under Section 148 of IPC is made out against accused appellants - Accused, who were carrying firearms, started indiscriminate firing and as to who fired at whom, cannot be ascertained for very reason that they were all armed with firearms and were firing at same time - Learned trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that accused appellants with common intention to cause death, attacked complainant side and have rightly convicted all accused appellants for offence under Section 302/149 of IPC - All witnesses have shown presence of accused appellants at place of incident and have specifically levelled allegations with regard to firing and causing injuries – Court do not find any illegality in impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
1. The appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, Rajasthan, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and have been sentenced as under:-
| (i) | Under Section 148 of IPC | 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. |
| (ii) | Under Section 341 of IPC | 1 month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. |
| (iii) | Under Section 323/149 of IPC | 1 year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. |
| (iv) | Under Section 325/149 of IPC | 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. |
| (v) | Under Section 326/149 of IPC | 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. |
| (vi) | Under Section 307/149 of IPC | 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. |
| (vii) | Under Section 302/149 of IPC | Life imprisonment and 1 month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. |
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2010, complainant – Rajendra (PW-6) filed a written report (Exhibit-P36) at Sadar Police Station, Alwar. On the said report, police registered FIR No.476/2010 (Exhibit-P62) on the same day. The police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present accused appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of IPC. The case was committed for the trial and the charges were framed against the accused appellants. The appellants denied all the charges and sought trial. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 86 documents. Explanations of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) wherein they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, 6 documents were got exhibited. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, has convicted the accused appellants for the offences as stated herein-above, aggrieved by which, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
3. It is contended by the counsel appearing for the accused appellants that in the initial report, which was lodged, 16 persons were named as assailants, however, the police submitted the charge-sheet only against 7 persons, which goes to show that there was over implication. It is also contended that the complainant – Rajendra (PW-6) was not an eye-witness, as he was not injured and it appears that some legal advise was sought before drafting the complaint. It is further contended that Babu Lal (PW-13), who is said to be an eyewitness, is a planted witness. He has also not sustained any injury. It is argued that none of the accused have been charged for the offence under the Arms Act and it is not established that as to who caused the death of deceased Kanhaiya. It is also argued that all the eye-witnesses have stated
The court upheld the convictions under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302, affirming that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for offences committed in furtherance of a common object.
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under sections 147, 148, 149/307, and 149/302 IPC, establishing that they formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause harm, leading t....
Common object – No overt act is required to be imputed to a particular person when charge is under Section 149 IPC – Presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.
(1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 3 ¯ Relation witness ¯ It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated bef....
The evidence must establish a premeditated intent to commit murder and the existence of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder to support a conviction for murder under Secti....
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the common object of the accused in a fatal assault.
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
