Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1453 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Deedar Singh

2008-05-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–Both the criminal appeals; one filed by the State of Rajasthan and another filed by accused namely Deedar Singh, arise out of the same FIR, same set of facts and evidence, hence they are being decided by this common Judgment. (2). The State of Rajasthan has preferred appeal under Section 378(i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of acquittal dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 37/1998, whereby it challenged the acquittal of the accused respondent for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 16/54 of the Excise Act. (3). The accused appellant has preferred appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 37/1998, for the offence under Sections 308 and 341 IPC. (4). Brief facts of the case are that Amar Singh S/o Sri Ram Yadav submitted a written report at Reserve Line, Malakhera on 20.6.1998 Ex. P. 2 to this effect that today in the night at about 9-10 PM he along-with Girdhar Gurjar, Mahendra Singh Choudhary, Gyan Singh Choudhary, Bajrang Singh, Hanif Khan Mev and driver Heera Lal Yadav went to Mauzpur from Malakhera, in a jeep bearing RJ-02-C-2761 to check the wine shop. When these persons came in the night at about 1:30 AM at the Mod of Tibara Bader, after checking the wine shops, then from the side of Ballu Singh, one Rajdoot motor-cycle came, on which two Roy Sikhs were there. The driver of the jeep in order to give side, slow down the speed of the jeep. These two Sardars identified the jeep that the jeep is of wine contractors. These persons put his motor-cycle at the center of road. Because of close of way, the jeep stopped, then one Roy Sikh made a fire by gun upon them. These persons caught Sardar with gun. The another Sikh ran away from the place of occurrence, by taking benefit of darkness. On the motor-cycle one tyre was tied, in which 15-20 illegal wine bottles were there. The injured persons have been admitted in Malakheda Hospital for treatment. The accused person was also admitted in the hospital for treatment. (5). These persons caught Sardar with gun. The another Sikh ran away from the place of occurrence, by taking benefit of darkness. On the motor-cycle one tyre was tied, in which 15-20 illegal wine bottles were there. The injured persons have been admitted in Malakheda Hospital for treatment. The accused person was also admitted in the hospital for treatment. (5). The Police on the basis of this written report, registered case No. 116/98 for the offence under Section 307 IPC, section 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act. (6). The Police after usual investigation submitted challan against accused person for the aforesaid offences. (7). The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused person for the offence under Section 308 and 341 IPC, section 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act. (8). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. (9). Thereafter the statement of the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. (10). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.5.2000 acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act as also for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act but convicted the accused person for the offence under sections 308 and 341 IPC. (11). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred appeal against the Judgment of acquittal and accused person has preferred appeal against the Judgment of conviction for the offence under Sections 308 and 341 IPC. (12). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly while acquitting the accused person for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act but right in convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 341 IPC. Lastly, he submits that the prosecution witnesses have not made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. He submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused person for the offence under sections 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act and rightly convicted the accused for the offence u/S. 308 and 341 IPC. Lastly, he submits that the prosecution witnesses have not made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. He submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused person for the offence under sections 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act and rightly convicted the accused for the offence u/S. 308 and 341 IPC. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act and 16/54 Excise Act dated 12.5.2000 for the aforesaid offences is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside but no interference is required to be made in the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.5.2008 passed by learned trial Court. (13). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused person has submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused person for the aforesaid offences. He submits that the prosecution witnesses have made improvements and contradictions in their statements. Thus, the conviction of the accused person for the offence under Sections 308 and 341 IPC cannot be sustained at all. He submits that PW. 10 Bajrang Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. (14). Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel submits that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 20.6.1998 and at the time of alleged offence, the accused person was 70 years of age and after that near-about 10 years have passed. He submits that the accused person is at present 80 years of age and he is suffering from number of disease and at present he is on the death bed. He further candidly requested to this Court that the accused person should be released on the already undergone period. (15). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused person and also gone through the record of the case. (16). He further candidly requested to this Court that the accused person should be released on the already undergone period. (15). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused person and also gone through the record of the case. (16). Having gone through the impugned judgment 12.5.2000 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused person for the offence under Section 3/25, Arms Act and 16/54 of the Excise Act but learned trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 308 and 341 IPC. (17). Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused appellant Deedar Singh for the offence under Sections 308 and 341 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone period. (18). Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 12.5.2000 of the accused person passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 37/98, for the offence under Section 3/25, Arms Act and 16/54, Excise Act is maintained and the appeal filed by the accused appellant is partly allowed and the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.5.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 37/1998 is modified to the extent that the accused appellant is acquitted on the period already undergone by him. (19). The impugned Judgment of the trial Judge shall stand modified as indicated above.