Advocates:
['ASHVIN GARG', 'PP', '', 'R S BHARDWAJ/B S GURJAR']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 604/2017

Mahendra Singh S/o Hanuman Singh Lamba,b/c Jat R/o Indali,

Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, At Present Lodged In

The District Jail, Jhunjhunu.

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr.Ashvin Garg with Mr.Ajay Pratap

Singh

For Respondent(s)

For Complainant

:

Mr.Sudesh Saini,PP

Mr.R.S.Bhardwaj

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment

10/08/2018

BY THE COURT:

1.

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment

and order dated 06.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge

No.2,Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.12/2014(CIS No. 1542/2014)

whereby appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections

354, 384, 306 IPC and under Section 67 of Information &

Technology Act and has been sentenced for two years simple

imprisonment for offence under Section 354 IPC, three years

simple imprisonment for offence under Section 384 IPC, rigorous

imprisonment of ten years for offence under Section 306 IPC and

rigorous imprisonment of three years for offence under Section 67

of I.T.Act. Court has further imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence

under Section 354, Rs.5000/- for offence under Section 384 IPC,

Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 306 IPC and Rs.one lakh

(2 of 8)

[CRLA-604/2017]

for offence under Section 67 of I.T. Act. On non-payment of fine

one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 354,

simple imprisonment of three months for offence under Section

384, simple imprisonment of six months for offence under Section

306 IPC and simple imprisonment of six months for offence under

Section 67 of I.T.Act. Court has also ordered that all substantive

sentences would run concurrently.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR was

lodged on 11.6.2014 that daughter of the complainant, who would

be hereinafter called as “victim”, left the house in mid-night of

9.6.2014. It was mentioned in the FIR that two mobiles and

Rs.30,000/- were missing from her room. It was alleged that the

appellant had prepared a vulgar video, which he had circulated to

boys in village and on the basis of that video clip he was

blackmailing the victim. It was also mentioned in the FIR that

appellant called the deceased on 9.6.2014 at mid-night and after

murdering her threw her in the well. It was also mentioned that

marriage of the victim took place with Ummed Singh on

15.5.2014.

3.

Police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against

the appellant. Appellant denied the charges and sought trial, upon

which as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 27 documents

were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Statement of the

appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was

produced in defence by the appellant nor any document was

exhibited on his behalf. Court after hearing the arguments has

convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

4.

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the

conviction of the appellant is bad in law. No offence is made out

(3 of 8)

[CRLA-604/2017]

against the appellant as the reasoning given by the learned trial

Court is based on surmises and conjectures.

5.

It is contended that Ex.P-19 is not the first information

report. Real first information report has been suppressed by the

prosecution. My attention has been drawn to statement of PW12-

Subhash Chandra, who has stated that he went to the police and

had submitted a report signed by him with regard to death of the

victim. PW16-Gopiram Bajiya, SHO has admitted in his cross-

examination that he had received information about death of

victim and on the basis of that information, they went to the place

of occurrence. It is also appearing in the statement of PW16 that

report Ex.P-19 was given much after the dead-body was recovered

from