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

2024 Supreme(Raj) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, BHUWAN GOYAL, JJ.
Surendra Kumar @ Vishmbhar S/o Shri Girdhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 384 of 2018
Decided on : 09-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
For the Respondent: Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. G.A.
For the Complainant : Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 324, 148, 323, 341, and 149 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application and interpretation of Sections 100 and 102 of the IPC, as well as relevant case laws such as "Deo Narain Versus The State of U.P." and "Lakshmi Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar" in relation to the right of private defense and the importance of explaining injuries on the accused side. The judgment also highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish the genesis of the crime and the inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute resulting in multiple injuries and a death. The accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The appellants appealed against the conviction, arguing self-defense and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the genesis of the crime and did not explain the injuries sustained by the accused side. It also noted inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. The court concluded that the accused had acted in self-defense and acquitted them of all charges.

Issues: The key issues included the right of private defense, the failure of the prosecution to establish the genesis of the crime, and the inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused side, the inconsistencies in the evidence presented, and the application of the right of private defense under Sections 100 and 102 of the IPC.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court were quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants were acquitted of all charges, and those in custody were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. Accused-appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by judgment and sentence dated 27.09.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Hindaun City, whereby appellants namely; Surendra Kumar @ Vishmbhar, Subhash @ Neta and Smt. Geeta each have been convicted and sentenced for the offences stated as under:-

    (i) Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.- life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(ii) Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iii) Section 148 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iv) Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C.- six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.

(v) Section 341 I.P.C.- fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment. Rajkumar has been convicted and sentenced for the offences stated as under:-

(i) Section 302 I.P.C.- life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(ii) Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iii) Section 148 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iv) Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C.- six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.

(v) Section 341 I.P.C.- fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

Mohan Lal has been convicted and sentenced for the offences stated as under:-

(i) Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.- life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(ii) Section 324 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iii) Section 148 I.P.C.- two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

(iv) Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C.- six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.

(v) Section 341 I.P.C.- fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that parcha bayan (Ex.P-1) of Bhagwan Sahay Soni (PW-1) was recorded on 28.07.2013, which reads as under:-

^^ipkZ c;ku Jh Hkxoku lgk; iq= Jh f'kopj.k tkfr lksuh mez 21 lky fuoklh 'kgjkdj Fkkuk VksMkHkhe ftyk djkSyh ¼jkt0½ gky tSj bykt lh,plh VksMkHkhe ftyk djkSyh cflyflys vkenk rgjhj Jheku ,evks lkgc lh,plh VksMkHkhe fnukad 28-07-2013 us nfj;kr ij c;ku fd;k fd vkt fnukad 28-07-2013 dks lka; djhc 7&8 cts 'kke esjh eEeh foeyk nsoh igkM+h ij ysfVªax djus x;h FkhA jkLrs esa esjh eEeh dks vdsyk ns[kdj fo'kEHkj jk.kk] xhrk] eksgu] js'ke] /kkik] fxj/kkjh] lqHkk"k] fo'ofiz;] jktdqekj] foosd] y{eh vpkud vk x;h vkSj esjh eEeh dks jksddj ekjihV dhA gYyk lqudj eSa] gfjvkse] f'kopj.k ¼esjk firk½ jkts'k] ogka ij igqaps vkSj esjh eEeh dks cpk;k rks bu lHkh yksxksa us esjh] esjs firk f'kopj.k o esjs HkkbZ gfjvkse o jkts'k fd ykBh] MaMksa] iRFkjksa o ryokj ls ekjihV dhA ekjihV esa ge lHkh ifjokj okyks d

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