Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1787 (RAJ)

Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-15

S.P.PATHAK

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has not challenged the factum of incident but he challenges the nature of offences as held against the accused persons Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh, Udai Singh and Shambhu Singh. According to him, none of the injured or deceased had sustained any such injury which can be said to be sufficient to cause death. His argument is that at best accused persons could have had the intention of robbing them by disabling and in that process may be the incident of killing has occurred. Therefore, offence under Section 302, IPC cannot be said to be made out against the accused persons. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor feebly agrees that there was no injury on the person of the deceased. Mechanical injury being absent it would be unjust if the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants is not given some weightage. In this background offence under Section 307, IPC, would be clearly made out because in that process there was an attempt by virtue of which one of the victims have died. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration we are of the opinion that offence under Section 307, IPC, has taken place and that offence under Section 302, IPC, could not be made out in the circumstances. An attempt shows that under Section 307, IPC, is made out against accused persons namely Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh and Udai Singh. 5. Consequently, the appeal of the accused appellants Gulab Singh, Laxman Singh, Nathu Singh and Udai Singh is partly allowed. Their conviction is altered to one i.e., under Section 307, IPC. Their conviction under Section 302/34, IPC, is set aside. They are said to be behind the bars since the date of their arrest i.e., from year 1999 roughly six years have been spent by them behind the bars. 6. That being the position, accused appellants Gulab Singh, Laxman Singh, Nathu Singh and Udai Singh are convicted under Section 307, IPC. Accused persons namely Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh and Udai Singh are sentenced to the period already undergone under Section 307, IPC. As regards, their conviction under Sections 458 and 460, IPC, are concerned they are maintained. The sentence awarded to them is altered to the period of substantive sentence already undergone. 7. Accused persons namely Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh and Udai Singh are sentenced to the period already undergone under Section 307, IPC. As regards, their conviction under Sections 458 and 460, IPC, are concerned they are maintained. The sentence awarded to them is altered to the period of substantive sentence already undergone. 7. As regards, accused Shamboo Singh is concerned he has been convicted under Section 411, IPC for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment. He has already remained behind the bars for a considerable period, therefore, his jail sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of accused namely Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh and Udai Singh is altered from Sections 302 read with 34, IPC to Section 307. Their conviction under Sections 458 and 460, IPC, are maintained. Their substantive sentences under all the section is reduced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is maintained. As regards, appeal of Shamboo Singh in Appeal No. 792/2001, he has been convicted under Section 411, IPC. His conviction is maintained. His substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. Sentence of fine is already maintained. Accused Shamboo Singh is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Accused namely Gulab Singh, Nathu Singh, Laxman Singh and Udai Singh are behind the bars. They are ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.