HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
DINESH KUMAR AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJ – Respondent
CRLA 739/2004
['M ASLAM KHAN', '', 'HARENDRA SINSINWAR', 'RAJESH GOSWAMI', 'RAJESH CHAUDHARY', 'N A NAQVI', 'BIRI SINGH', 'ALADEEN KHAN', 'P P']
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.739/2004
against the judgment dated 11.6.2004
passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track), Behror, District
Alwar in Sessions Case No.10/04
(6/04).
Date of Judgment
::
March 04, 2015
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Mr. Biri Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh
Chaudhary, for the appellant.
Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. V.S. Yadav, for the complainant.
(Per R.S. Chauhan, J.)
Aggrieved by judgment dated 11.6.2004 passed by the
Additional Sessions (Fast Track), Behror, District Alwar,
Dinesh Kumar and Dharmveer have approached this court.
By the said judgment, the learned Judge has convicted and
sentenced the appellants as under:-
Dinesh Kumar
U/s.302 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed him with a
fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo six
months simple imprisonment in default thereof.
Dharmveer
U/s.302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, imposed him
with a fine of Rs.1000/-, and directed to further undergo six
months simple imprisonment in default thereof.
1
In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on
29.7.2003, Pankaj Kumar (P.W.1) submitted a written report
(Ex.P.1) before the SHO, Police Station Behror, which when
translated into English, reads as under:-
To,
The SHO
Police Station Behror
Sir,
Humbly it is submitted that my brother, Virendra
Singh, used to work at Hotel Minar owned by Dinesh
Kumar and Dharmveer. Last night around 12:00
O’clock at night, Virendra asked Dinesh and Dharmveer
to return Rs.600/- of his, which he had lent to them.
Due to this, there was a verbal altercation and push
and shove between them. After this, Virendra left the
place on his bicycle. Dinesh and Dharmveer went
inside the room, picked up some weapon, and went
after Virendra. Dinesh hit him over the head with the
weapon. Virendra caught hold of him and fell at the
spot. After this, Subhash, Dharmveer, Dinesh and
Balveer, Sunil, Raj and Lalit picked him up. Dinesh and
Subhash took Virendra, on a motorcycle, to the Behror
hospital. The doctors at the hospital declared him
dead. The moment I came to know this, I came to the
hospital. I noticed that Virendra had a grievous injury
on his head. There may be other injuries on his body.
But I do not know. After this, we went back to the
hotel. In a room of the hotel, we discovered a blood
stained shirt and a pant. There was blood on the side
of the road. A pair of slippers were lying here and
there. A cycle was also there. But it is said that the
cycle was placed there later on. Subhash and Balveer
working at the hotel, have seen this incident. Two or
three other persons, who keep on coming and going
they have too seen this incident. These persons have
told me about the incident. Therefore, I pray that legal
action should be taken, and the guilty should be
punished.
Sd/-
Pankaj Kumar S/o. Prabhati Lal Yadav,
By caste Aheer, Village Kalyanpura,
Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.
2
On the basis of this written report (Ex.P.1), the police
chalked out a formal FIR (Ex.P.2), namely FIR No.372/03 for
offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. It started
investigation. After arresting both the appellants, a charge-
sheet for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was filed
before the ACJM, Behror. The case was committed to the
Sessions Court, therefrom it was transferred to the learned
Judge. The learned Judge framed the charges against the
appellants for offences under Sections 302 read with Section
34 IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution examined
nineteen witnesses, and submitted forty-eight documents.
After completing the prosecution evidence, the learned
Judge recorded the statement of the appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the appellants claimed