Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1515 (RAJ)

State v. Rehman Khan

2008-05-29

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.—The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.8.1998 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 18/97 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Aasin for the offence under Sections 307 readwith Section 34 & 323 IPC and also acquitted accused-respondent Rehman for the offence under Section 307 readwith Section 34 IPC but convicted him for the offence under Section 323 IPC and released him on probation by giving him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 but imposed a prosecution expenses of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited in the Court which should be given to injured Sorabs mother Smt. Mena in the form of compensation. (2). In brief, the facts of the case are as under:- On 13.5.1997 complainant Sumsuddin (PW. 3) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 5) in P.S. Ramgarh, Alwar with this effect that on 12.5.1997 at about 8-9 A.M. he was in his house then accused- respondents armed with Lathi & Sariya and started abusing language and they caught his son Sorab (PW. 4) and they started beating to him. When his son cried then the complainant went to escape him then accused-respondents also gave beating to him. He further stated in his report that his sons conditions is very critical and he was admitted in Alwar Hospital. (3). Upon the said information the police registered the case for the offence under Section 341 and 323 IPC and started investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan under Sections 341, 323 & 307 readwith Section 34 IPC. against the accused-respondents before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Alwar where the case was committed to the learned trial Court. (4). The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (5). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (6). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (7). (4). The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (5). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (6). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (7). After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 22.8.1998 acquitted the accused respondent Aasin from the offence under Sections 307 readwith Section 34 IPC and 323 IPC, but convicted the accused-respondent Rehman for the offence under Section 323 IPC as indicated hereinabove. (8). Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 22.8.1998, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. (9). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused- respondents and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.8.1998 is erroneous one and should be set aside. (10). He has further contended that the learned trial Court has erred in overlooking the evidence of Shorab (the injured) who has clearly stated in his evidence that he had received injuries on his head by the beatings of Rehman and on the back of his right hand by the beating of Aasin and on account of the above injuries he had become unconscious and came into a conscious state in Jaipur. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of Dr. A.S. Rathore who has stated in his evidence that Shorab had received 8 x 6 c.m. Injury on the middle of Paritla part of Head and the above injury was of serious nature and is enough to cause death. (11). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. (12). (12). He has also contended that the accused-respondent has also complied with the order of the learned trial Court and they are facing the mental agony from last several years which is tentamounts to punishment. He has further contended that there is a major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the material witnesses of this case namely PW.- Samsuddin, PW. 5 Dhupla, PW.7 Deva Khan, PW. 8 Iliyas, PW. 11 Kamruddin & PW. 12 Bhim Singh has been declared hostile and they are the star witnesses of the prosecution. He has further contended that although this case was in the nature of acquittal of the accused respondents but learned trial Court has convicted the accused-respondent Rehman for the offence as indicated hereinabove. (13). For these reasons I do not want to interfere with the judgment of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar (Raj.) dated 22.8.1998 and the same is hereby confirmed after dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan.