Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 25 (RAJ)

Kaloo v. State of Rajasthan

2004-01-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal filed by accused Kalu S/o Kistoor through Jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Pali in sessions case No. 108/2003 whereby the accused appellant alongwith two co-accused Kana Ram and Chuna Ram were convicted for the offence under Secs. 324 and 324/34 IPC respectively and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The briefly stated facts giving rise to the present case are that on 17.12.2002 at about 11.00 PM, PW-7 Behru Singh lodged an FIR inter alia alleging therein that he alongwith Ratan Singh, Chunnilal, Lumbaram and Mahendra Singh were taking meal at hotel in the night. Appellant Kalu and two other co-accused persons came there in a drunken state having knives in their hands and inflicted injuries on one Ratan Singh. On this report, a case bearing No. 714/02 was registered at RS. Kotwali, Pali for the offence under Secs. 324 and 307 IPC. After completion of usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant and two co-accused Kana Ram and Chuna Ram. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of accused appellant and co-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial court came to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against any of the accused including the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and Kana Ram and Chuna Ram for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and they were convicted accordingly as noticed above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and order impugned. 4. I have carefully gone through the statements of various prosecution witnesses including injured Ratan Singh PW-2, Dr. S.C. Jain PW-3 who examined the injuries, Mahendra Singh PW-4, Lumba Ram PW-5, Chuna Ram PW-6, Bheru Singh PW-7, Manohar Khan PW-8, Sawai Singh PW-9, Ogadram PW-10 and Bheek Singh PW-11. On careful scrutiny of evidence of these witnesses, it is amply established that accused appellant caused hurt which was simple in nature to Ratan Singh PW-2. S.C. Jain PW-3 who examined the injuries, Mahendra Singh PW-4, Lumba Ram PW-5, Chuna Ram PW-6, Bheru Singh PW-7, Manohar Khan PW-8, Sawai Singh PW-9, Ogadram PW-10 and Bheek Singh PW-11. On careful scrutiny of evidence of these witnesses, it is amply established that accused appellant caused hurt which was simple in nature to Ratan Singh PW-2. The statement of injured Ratan Singh is fully corroborated with the statement of eye witness Bheru Singh PW-7. However, other alleged eye witnesses were of course turned hostile but they were subject to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of court. The injuries suffered by Ratan Singh PW-2 are fully corroborated with the statement of eye witness and same have been proved by Dr. SC Jain PW-3. The findings arrived at by learned trial court are based on sound appreciation of evidence and on close scrutiny of all these, I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by trial court. In the circumstances, therefore, the Judgment of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous, on the contrary, it is based on sound reasonings. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, appellant Kalu was sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one week's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. This cannot be said to be disproportionate and hence calls for no interference. I am told that during the trial, appellant, remained in custody for 40 days and therefore he continued in jail till completion of sentence. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. The order convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby affirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******