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

2009 Supreme(Raj) 224

[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 309 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Ashok Vs. State of Rajasthan (Jain, J.)
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
HON'BLE GUMAN SINGH, J.
Ashok
Versus
State of Rajasthan
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 58 and 174 of 2003, decided on 09.02.2009

Advocates Appeared
Biri Singh with Rajesh Choudhary, for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 58/2003;
Naveen Kumar Sharma with Nawab Ali Rathore and Kapil Gupta and C.P. Meena, Advocates, for N.A. Naqvi, for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2003;
B.K. Sharma and M.S. Kachhawa, Public Prosecutors, for State

Headnote:Penal Code, Secs. 302, 201, 34; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protecting of Children) Act, 2000, Sec. 2(k) — Conviction of juvenile u/S. 302 IPC — At the time of occurrence the accused was below the age of 16 years — When the appeal came up for hearing, he attained the age of 28 years — Held —Now it is not proper to send the accused appellant to juvenile home — Upholding conviction, the order of sentence set aside.

       Appeal No. 58/2003 partly allowed (Paras 34 to 36)

       But Appeal No. 174/2003 dismissed.

        n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 302] 201] 34( fdkksj U;k; ¼cky lqj{kk ,oa laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2000] /kkjk & fdkksj dks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ds rgr nks"kfl) djuk & ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qä 16 o"kZ ls de vk;q dk Fkk & tc vihy dh lquokbZ gsrq ckjh vkbZ rc rd og 28 o"kZ dk gks pqdk Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHk;qä vihykFkhZ dks vc fdkksj x`g esa Hkstuk mfpr ugha & nks"kflf) dks cgky j[krs gq, ltk dk vknsk vikLr fd;kA ¼in la- 34 ls 36½

       vihy la- 58@2003 vakr% Lohdkj dh

       ysfdu vihy la- 174@2003 [kkfjt dhA

Hon'ble JAIN, J.—These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 18th December, 2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Beawar, in Sessions Case No. 4/2002 (26/1995), therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 10th February, 1995 PW-3 Karim Bux S/o Dhanna Singh lodged a written-report (Exhibit P.3) at Police Station Sadar, Beawar, stating therein that on 9th February, 1995 at about 8.00 PM, when he was returning to his home after natural call, he saw his nephew Shokin S/o Rasool, Shafi S/o Gheesa and Ashok S/o Chhotu going towards their agriculture field situated near `talab-wala-kua'. He asked them about their visit; thereupon Shafi replied that they re going to oust `Rojda', (a kind of animal), from their agriculture field; on hearing this, he went to his house and slept. On the next day morning his brother Rasool came to him and told that Shokin had gone with Shafi and Ashok in the last night but has not come back at home. He and his brother called Ashok and asked him about Shokin. Ashok told them that Shafi knows about him. Thereafter they called Shafi and asked him about Shokin but he told that Ashok knows about Shokin. When they could not get anything about Shokin from their mouth, they told about it to Hussein, who went at the residence of Shafi and, on coming back, Hussein narrated us the entire story told by Shafi that Shokin has been killed and his dead body has been put in the well known as `meeramaa-ka-kua'. He told that they committed a mistake and he should save them and that report may not be lodged. Thereafter they called Shafi and Ashok as to what happened with Shokin but they were not found at their houses. Thereafter he along-with his brother Rasool, Bhima S/o Lalu and Karima S/o Lala went at the well, which is known as `meerama-ka-kua' along-with `bilai', a hook used for taking out an object fallen to the bottom of a well; they tried to search the dead-body by putting the `bilai' in the well and, during this exercise, the dead-body started floating on the water in the well. His nephew Shokin has been killed by Ashok and Shafi and his dead-body is floating on the water in the well and, prayed for necessary action in this regard after lodging the report.

3. On the basis of this written-report, the police registered FIR No. 36/1995 under Sections 302/120/34 IPC and started investigation. The dead-body was recovered. The accused-persons were arrested and on their information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act during custody, Slippers and one Alvin watch of the deceased and rope used by the accused to commit murder of the deceased, were recovered. The postmortem of the dead-body was conducted.

4. After completion of investigation the police submitted a challan against both the accused-persons for the offence under Sections, 302, 201 and 34 IPC. The accused-persons were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The trial Court framed charge against the accused-persons for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC. The accused-persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution examined total 13 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rasool, PW-2 Rama, PW-3 Karim Bux, PW-5 Gajendra Gaur, PW-6 Karima, PW.7 Ali Mohammad, PW-8 Hussein, PW.9 Reshmi, PW.-10 Rajendra Singh, PW.11 Dr. M.L. Thathera, PW.12 Prahlad Rai, PW. 13 Ratan Singh and PW.14 Mitthum, and produced documentary evidence Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P. 28. Thereafter statements of accused-persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In answer to Question No. 15, the accused-persons stated that due to animosity, the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them. The accused-persons sought time to lead evidence in defence but despite granting them an opportunity, they did not lead any evide









































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top