Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 228 (RAJ)

Gajendra @ Gajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-25

F.C.BANSAL

body2005
Judgment F.C. Bansal, J.-Accused-appellants Gajendra @ Gajendra Singh @ Pappan, Rakesh @ Pappu and Deepak @ Deepak Singh have preferred their appeals against the Judgment dated 15.09.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 124/2001 whereby appellant Rakesh @ Pappu has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and appellants Gajendra @ Gajendra Singh @ Pappan and Deepak @ Deepak Singh have been convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months each. All the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment . The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : 2. On 25.01.1991 at around 10.30 a.m. accused Pappan @ Gajendra Singh, Pappi, Bhuriya @ Hanif , Deepak and Pappu armed with knives and katar came at the flour mill of Tarachand situated in Kota City and dragged Mahendra Singh from the flour mill and beat him with kicks and fists in front of the flour mill of Vijay. He was saved by Vijay. When this incident was taking place, Peeru @ Peer Mohd. and Pappu Singh reached there. Thereafter, Pappan @ Gajendra, Pappi, Deepak and Bhuriya caught hold of Peeru, dragged him to the lane of Abdul Haq compounder and inflicted injured on his person with stones and bricks. Peeru was taken to the hospital by his wife and Pappu Singh. On the basis of the Parcha-Bayan Exhibit P-2 of Mahendra Singh, a case under Sections 147, 148, 365, 307 read with Sections 34, 323 and 149, IPC was registered by SHO, P.S. Bheemganjmandi and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court. In due course, all the three appellants and Mehboob @ Pappi, who was acquitted by the trial Court from all the charges, came to be tried and the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the impugned Judgment as also the evidence on record. 4. Apart from medical evidence, the prosecution case rests on the solitary statement of PW . 10 Peeru @ Peer Mohd. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the impugned Judgment as also the evidence on record. 4. Apart from medical evidence, the prosecution case rests on the solitary statement of PW . 10 Peeru @ Peer Mohd. Even injured Mahedra Singh turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. Though in his cross-examination injured Peer Mohd. has stated that accused Rakesh caught him and thereafter accused Deepak caused injury with stone on his person but in his examination-in-chief he did not State that he had been caught by accused Rakesh. No specific act of accused appellant Rakesh was stated by him. 5. Having perused the entire statement of injured PW. 10 Peer Mohd., I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused appellant Rakesh in the alleged incident and, therefore, his appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. In the alleged incident injured Peer Mohd. sustained ten injuries caused by blunt weapon, out of which only one injury which was on his head was grievous in nature. As per the version of injured Peer Mohd., the grievous injury had been caused by appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh. Learned Counsel for accused appellant Gajendra @ Gajendra Singh has contended that instead of charge under Section 307, IPC, the appellant is guilty under Section 323, IPC for having caused simple injury on the person of injured Peer Mohd. As per the version of injured Peer Mohd., accused appellant Gajendra Singh had caused simple injury brick and stone on his person. As per the prosecution case when accused appellants were belabouring Mahendra Singh, injured Peer Mohd. came there and thereafter he was also caused injuries. This fact proves that there was no common intention of the accused appellants for causing injuries to Peer Mohd. Therefore, accused appellant Gajendra may be held guilty only for his individual act and in my considered view he has committed an offence under Section 323, IPC. 7. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh has not challenged his conviction under Section 307, IPC. His only prayer is that the appellant has remained in custody for more than three years and four months. He had caused only one grievous injury on the person of injured Peer Mohd. who is a pick-pocket. 7. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh has not challenged his conviction under Section 307, IPC. His only prayer is that the appellant has remained in custody for more than three years and four months. He had caused only one grievous injury on the person of injured Peer Mohd. who is a pick-pocket. Prior to this offence, he has committed no offence. Hence, the substantive sentence awarded to him by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made above, I feel that ends of justice would be met if appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only). 9. Consequently, the appeal of appellant Rakesh @ Pappu is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. 10. Appeal of appellant Gajendra @ Gajendra Singh @ Pappan is partly allowed. While modifying the Judgment and order of the trial Court, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 307, IPC. Instead he is convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. He has already remained in custody for more than one year. Therefore, he be released from jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 11. Appeal of appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh is allowed in part. His conviction under Section 307, IPC stands confirmed but the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five thousand only), in default of payment of fine he will suffer S.I. for three months. On payment of fine, he shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. If the amount of fine is deposited by appellant Deepak @ Deepak Singh, the same shall be paid as compensation to injured PW. 10 Peer Mohd. S/o Abdul Latif .