Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 141 (RAJ)

Jug Raj v. State of Rajasthan

1991-02-01

Y.R.MEENA

body1991
Y. R. MEENA, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 12. 11. 81, wherein, he convicted the accused Iqbalsingh for the offence under Sec. 326, IPC and sentenced him two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I. He convicted the accused Chhogaram & Jugraj Singh for the offence under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 34, IPC and sentenced each of them one years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 150/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Harneksingh lodged a first information report at the police station, Muklawa on 18.4.70 at 6.45 a.m. stating, inter alia, that on 17. 4. 70 at about 9 p.m. when he was in his dhani, at that time, accused Chhogaram came there and called him to come out. He came out of his dhani and saw that the accused Jugrajsingh, Jeetsingh and Iqbalsingh were sitting at a distance of 1 Kilia from his dhani. When he came out, Chhogaram and Jugrajsingh caught hold of him and Iqbalsingh fired a gun shot at him, which hit his leg and thereupon, all the four accused-persons ran away. He also alleged in the report that Jugrajsingh and Chhogaram were also armed with their guns and at that time, his wife Gulab Kaur and his son Jagirsingh also came there and just after this occurrence, his brother Kapoorsingh and Gurnamsingh also came there. A case was registered under Sec. 307, IPC against all the four accused-persons. The police undertook the investigation of this case and after investigation, the police came to a conclusion that the occurrence has not been happened as stated by the informant and, therefore, a final report was submitted in the court. 3. The informant, thereafter, lodged a complaint on 21. 12. 70 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. The learned Magistrate after taking proceedings under Sec. 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. summoned ail the four accused-persons under Sec. 307, IPC by his order dated 4.9.71 and committal proceedings were undertaken. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate framed the charges under Sec. 326, IPC against the accused Iqbalsingh and the rest of the accused-persons under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 34, IPC. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate framed the charges under Sec. 326, IPC against the accused Iqbalsingh and the rest of the accused-persons under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 34, IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the four accused-persons. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the complainant preferred an appeal before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while accepting the appeal remanded back the case to the trial court with the direction to record the statements of the accused under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and decide the case in accordance with law. After remand of the case, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of the accused-persons as per direction of this Court and acquitted Jeetsingh but convicted the rest of three accused-persons viz. Jugrajsingh, Iqbalsingh and Chhogaram. 5. The accused-persons, being aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, the accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, who by his judgment dated 12. 11.81 upheld the conviction and sentence both. 6. Being aggrieved of the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, the accused-petitioners filed this revision petition before this Court. 7. Mr. M. K. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the facts are not in dispute that the police has given a final report on the ground that no case is made out against the accused-petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-petitioners. The complainant came up in appeal before this Court against the order of acquittal. The matter was restored back to him to record the statements of the accused-petitioners under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. After remand, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the accused petitioners. But nothing additional material was brought on record. The accused-petitioners denied to have committed any offence whatsoever. Inspite of that, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, which is contrary to the facts brought on record. Nothing more was added after the remand rather the statements of the accused-petitioners were even in their favour. Therefore, there is no justification for conviction of the accused-petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Inspite of that, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, which is contrary to the facts brought on record. Nothing more was added after the remand rather the statements of the accused-petitioners were even in their favour. Therefore, there is no justification for conviction of the accused-petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of both the court-below and submitted that the accused-petitioners were rightly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and considered the material on record. The facts stated above are not in dispute, therefore, they need not to be repeated once again. After remand, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the accused-petitioners and after hearing the arguments, he convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as aforesaid. Upon perusal of record, it appears that the learned Magistrate, after remand of the case, has done nothing except to record the statements of the accused-petitioners as per direction of this Court. However, no additional material was brought on record. Merely, recording of the statements of the accused-petitioners, in which, they have denied to have committed any offence, cannot be said to be sufficient for conviction of the offenders rather it goes in favour of the accused-petitioners. The defence taken that there was quarrel between Harneksingh and Kapoorsingh. In that quarrel, Kapoorsingh fired at Harneksingh as the complainant has some enmity with the accused-persons, therefore, they have been falsely implicated by him. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that when the final report was given by the police in the case and the accused-persons were acquitted on accepting the evidence by the learned Magistrate, which creates some doubt and the benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused-petitioners. The doubt based on the facts as stated in the F.I.R. that Iqbalsingh, Jugrajsingh and Jeet Singh were sitting at a distance of I killa from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Jugrajsingh and Chhogaram cought hold of the complainant and Iqbalsingh fired a shot at the complainant, which hit his leg. The doctor report reveals that the injury in question was caused by gun shot ranging from 8ft to 10 ft. The complainant has improved his statement in Court, stating that Killa means a place where the buffalows are tying with the Killa. The doctor report reveals that the injury in question was caused by gun shot ranging from 8ft to 10 ft. The complainant has improved his statement in Court, stating that Killa means a place where the buffalows are tying with the Killa. The sentences used in the F.I.R. are that "when he came out from the dhani, he saw Jugrajsingh, Iqbalsingh and Jeetsingh. They were sitting at a distance of 1 Killa from his dhani, which indicates the distance in term of Killa. The word killa used here to indicate the distance. In court, the complainant has tried to improve this fact, therefore, the accused-petitioners were acquitted. 11. This Court vide judgment dated 2. 12. 78 restored the matter back to the trial court with direction to record the statement of the aceused-petittoners under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. which is must and without that, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is defective. This is the basic requirement before passing the judgment. In view of the directions of this Court, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the accused-petitioners. No other material was brought on record. No fresh statements were taken, which go against the accused-persons. The final report was given by the police on the previous material brought on record. The accused-persons were acquitted on that basis in the court of the learned Magistrate. Considering these basic facts, which are in favour of the accused-petitioners, in my view, the conviction was not justified. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is set-aside. The accused-petitioners are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are hereby discharged.