Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2662 (RAJ)

Ram Kishan @ Bhuriya v. State of Rajasthan

2008-12-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision the accused petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 11.9.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota (for short 'the appellate court') in appeal No.06/2007 by which he rejected the appeal filed by the accused petitioner and maintained the judgment dated 31.10.2006 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Kota (for short 'the trial court') in case No. 440/2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.3.2007 complainant Ram Kishan submitted a written report to this effect that petitioner was standing with sword out-side of his house and at that time he raised quarrel with some one. Upon this, two police personnels reached at Municipal Colony, Chhawani, Kota where the petitioner was found by the police party. As soon as petitioner saw the police persons, he started running away. He was caught and warned to stand. Thereafter the independent witnesses were searched but nobody became ready to become independent witness. Certain other facts were also mentioned. 3. The police on the basis of this written report, registered an FIR against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 4/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 4/25 of the N.D.P.S Act. 5. The trial Court after hearing framed charges against the accused petitioner for the aforementioned offence, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 3 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 8. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under section 4/25 of the N.D.P.S Act for a period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.200/- fine and in default of payment of fine, the accused petitioner shall further undergo 5 days simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 31.10.2006. 9. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2006, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. 10. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 11.9.2008. 11. 9. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2006, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. 10. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 11.9.2008. 11. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below have preferred instant revision petition before this Court. 12. Mr. Dinesh Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have not critically examined the facts and circumstances of the case as no independent witnesses were associated from locality although the place of incident is situated in highly thickly populated locality. PW2 and PW3 are police personnels and they are not independent witnesses of the occurrence. PW4 Ram Kishan had not followed the provisions mentioned under sections 100, 165 Cr.P.C. No offence under section 4/25 N.D.P.S. Act is made out against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner had suffered more than half of the sentence. Thus, both the courts below have committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned Judgments. 13. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor for the State controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submits that both the courts below have not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned judgments. 14. From the material available on record it is clear that both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the aforementioned offence and they have taken into consideration all the material available on record while convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner. 15. In the result, the instant criminal revision is devoid of merits and stands rejected.