HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Mahaveer Singh S/o Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 287, 512 of 1993
Decided On : 15-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals arising from trial court judgment (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural notes and final orders regarding appeals (Para 3 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. details of the incident and injuries sustained by victim (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments regarding the validity of witness testimonies (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and conviction justification (Para 8) |
| 6. modification of sentence based on case duration and context (Para 9) |
| 7. court's decision on the state's appeal against acquittal (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 04.08.1993 passed by the learend Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No.3/1990, whereby accused Pooran Singh, Jaswant Singh, Balveer Singh, Shambhoo Singh, Mahaveer Singh and Bhanwar Singh have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the IPC , however, accused Mahaveer Singh, Balveer Singh and Shambhoo singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, they would have to undergo simploe imprisonment of 15 days.
2. While Appeal No.287/1993 has been preferred by the appellants Mahaveer Singh, Shambhoo Singh and Balveer Singh being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC , the State Appeal bearing No.512/1993 has been preferred against acquittal of the accused persons from the charges under Sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the .
3. On 17.07.2025, when the matter was listed before the court, no one appeared on behalf of the accused-appellants even in the second round and therefore, Ms. Khushi Sharma, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.287/1993. When the matter was again listed on 18.07.2025 for hearing, learned counsel Mr. P.S. Champawat appeared on behalf of the appellants. Both the counsel Ms. Khushi Sharma and Ms. P.S. Champawat were allowed to argue the appeal jointly on behalf of the accused-appellants.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 27.03.1989, statement of injured Shiv Kumar was recorded by the police officer at Government Hespital, Jalore in which he stated that on 27.03.1989 at about 11.00 a.m. while he was going to his shap situated at Bus Stand, Jalore, Narpat the owner af the O.K. Guest House called him so he want to him and while he was talking with Narpat at the Bus stand 5-6 boys were standing and were pointing him. He told Narpat that these persens may beat him. Narpat assured that they will not beat him here and when he was returning, near Nakada Sweet Home, Mahaveer Singh, Balveer Singh and Shambhu Singh, who are appellants herein, and 3 other accused persens came there. The three accused appellants were having knife in their hands and the other accused persens were empty handed. Upen seeing them, he entered the O.K. Guest House, but Balveer Singh, Mahaveer Singh and Shambhu Singh pulled him out and inflicted knife blows in his stomach. Mahaveer Singh's brother, who was having Dheti, inflicted a blow on his head and the other accused persens inflicted fist blows on his eyes. He fell down, whereafter the accused persens started beating him with fists and kicks, whereafter, he became unconscious. When he regained his consciousness, Narpat told him that on his shouting, the accused persens ran away. He had further narrated that he could identify the remaining three accused persons, if they were shown to him. It was alleged that these accused persons had inflicted injuries with an intention to kill him. Upon this statement, C.R. No.78/1989 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 307, 324, 323, 341 & 149 I.P.C. was registered at the Police Station Jalore. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against thre accused persons before the concerned Magistrate, from where the case
The conviction for assault under Section 324 IPC was upheld due to sufficient evidence, while acquittal of others was justified as evidence showed no intent to kill.
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served, acknowledging the appellant's age and absence of prior offenses.
Murder and rioting – Sans unlawful assembly case of each accused has to be considered according to his individual act.
The aim of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is to prevent offenders from being committed to jail, serving the dual purpose of deterrence and reformation.
For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of common intention and active participation; mere presence is insufficient.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
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.