Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1007 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2004-07-20

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi bearing No. 72/2001 (old 74/2000). Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi vide judgment dated September 4, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant Kishan Lal under sections 394/34 and 75 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight months and the appellant Ramesh Kumar under sections 394/397 and 75 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year 2. As per prosecution story the injured Raju Soni (Pw. 1) submitted the written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Shivganj stating therein that on June 24, 2000 he was going to his shop by scooter No. RJ24/1 M/7002 having a chained- bag containing golden and silver ornaments in white packet along with the cash of shop. At the Chauraha before the Chhavani-chauraha Kishan Soni stopped him and told something about his brother, meanwhile the friend of Kishan Soni Ramesh Harijan came and at the point of Kishan, Ramesh gave a blow on his head and after snatching his bag and scooter fled away towards Sumerpur. The scooter was driven by Kishan Lal and the bag of ornaments was with Ramesh. He was taken to hospital by Paras Bhai and Kiran Soni. The police registered FIR No. 83/2000 under Section 394 IPC and investigation commenced. The appellants were arrested. On completion of investigation the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi. Charge under Sections 397/34 and 75 IPC was framed against the appellant Kishan Lal and Ramesh Kumar was charged for the offence under Sections 397 and 75 IPC. Lateron the charge was amended and Kishan Lal was charged for the offence under Sections 394 alternatively 394/34 IPC and Ramesh Kumar under Section 394 read with 397 IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The appellants in their explanation under section 313 Cr.PC. claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. No witness in defence, was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The appellants in their explanation under section 313 Cr.PC. claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. No witness in defence, was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the fact of snatching away the bag from Raju has not been established by the i prosecution. As also the recovery of the bag has been effected from an open place assessable to all. The scooter was not recovered from the possession of appellants. The identification of the articles has not conducted properly. The conviction and sentence against the appellants cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellants have been rightly convicted. The impugned judgment of the court below does not call for interference. 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. In order to establish the charge against the appellants the prosecution examined Raju (Pw. 1), Kiran Kumar (Pw. 7), Paras Mai (Pw. 8), Dr. Jagdeep Mehru (Pw. 11) and Gautam Kumar, Sub Inspector (Pw. 14). Raju (Pw. 1) categorically deposed that on January 24, 2000 while he was going to his shop Vijay Jewellers on scooter with the bag of ornaments, the appellant Kishan Lal got him haulted and appellant Ramesh inflicted injury on his head and lip. Thereafter Ramesh snatched the bag of ornaments from his hands and Kishanlal snatched the scooter and Kishan Lal and Ramesh both proceeded on the scooter with the bag of ornaments. Kiran Kumar (Pw.7) and Paras Mai (Pw.8) corroborated the statements of Raju. Dr. Jagroop Mehru (Pw.11) examined the injuries sustained by Raju vide injury report (Ex.R20), which are as under: "1. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 X 1cm over right parietal region of scalp Grievous (disfiguranment) Blunt 2. Lacerated wound 2 X 1/2 X 1/2cm over upper lip Grievous (disfiguranment) Blunt." 7. Gautam Kumar Jain (Pw.14), who investigated the case, deposed that on the basis of report he registered the FIR (Ex.P-25) thereafter the list of ornaments (Ex.P-11) was given to him by Raju. Lacerated wound 2 X 1/2 X 1/2cm over upper lip Grievous (disfiguranment) Blunt." 7. Gautam Kumar Jain (Pw.14), who investigated the case, deposed that on the basis of report he registered the FIR (Ex.P-25) thereafter the list of ornaments (Ex.P-11) was given to him by Raju. He further stated that Ramesh Kumar gave information under section 27 of the Evidence Act, that were recorded vide Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26. On the basis of information the ornaments got recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P-26. Weapon of offence got recovered at the instance of Ramesh Kumar vide recovery memo (Ex.P27). Ornaments got identified in presence of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Tehsildar (Pw.12) and Identification memo got drawn. 8. Having carefully considered the testimony of these witnesses, I find them reliable and trustworthy, their evidence could not be shattered in the cross examination. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the bag of ornaments was snatched by the appellants after inflicting injuries on the person of Raju and thereafter the appellants fled away on the scooter with the bag. The weapon of offence and ornaments got recovered at the instance of appellants and the ornaments were correctly identified by Raju before the Tehsildar. 9. In regard to submissions of learned counsel that no case under Section 397 IPC is made out, I find that Dr. Jagroop Mehru after seeing the injuries on the person of Raju, opined that they were grievous in nature. Neither the injuries got X-Rayed, nor the opinion was given after expiry of 20 days. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the injuries were grievous in nature. But since Ramesh Kumar has been convicted and sentenced under Section 394 read with 397 IPC, I do not see any error in his conviction under Section 394 IPC and in my opinion, he is rightly sentenced. 10. Upshot the above discussion is that the guilt under section 394/34 and 75 IPC against the appellant Kishan Lal and under section 394 and 75 IPC against the appellant Ramesh Kumar is established beyond reasonable doubt and both these appellants have been rightly sentenced. 11. For these reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******