Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2077 (RAJ)

Ladu Das v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-15

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this revision petition, the petitioners have made challenge to the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed while setting aside the judgment and order dated 9.7.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, District Nagaur convicting and sentencing the petitioners and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for retrial after framing the charges in the light of the discussion made in the judgment of the appellate Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.9.2001, complainant Nanu Ram submitted a written report in the Police Station Jaswantgarh to the effect that on 28.9.2001 his maternal uncle Kailash Chand, Ratan Lal and Mangal Ji Raika had come to meet him from their village Bhagera to Bhindasari. On 30.9.2001 at about 9.30 A.M., they were going to bus stand for returning to their village and he and his parents were also accompanying them, at that time, Ladu Das, Chhotu Das, Prem Das, Prabhu Das, Likham Das, Panu Devi, Bhanwari Devi, Manju, Nahar Singh and Bhanwar Lal armed with Kassis, Kulharis, iron rods, Dantlis and lathis came in truck No. RJ-14-1G-1875, stopped them and started beating them. Due to that beating, one hand of Kailash Chand was broken and he received injury in his head, one leg of Ratan Lal was broken and he also received injury in his head and they received injuries on various parts of their bodies. He made hue and cry, upon which Noon Das and his parents intervened and rescued them. 3. On the aforesaid report, Police registered F.I.R. No. 71/2001 and started investigation. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 I.P.C. in the competent Court. The Court took cognizance against the accused and framed charges against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed for trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Banarasi, PW-2 Nathu Das, PW-3 Ganesh Das, PW-4 Chunu Das, PW-5 Mool Das, PW-6 Ratan Lal, PW-7 Noon Das, PW-8 Ghasi Ram, PW-9 Dr. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Banarasi, PW-2 Nathu Das, PW-3 Ganesh Das, PW-4 Chunu Das, PW-5 Mool Das, PW-6 Ratan Lal, PW-7 Noon Das, PW-8 Ghasi Ram, PW-9 Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma, PW-10 Ramdev, PW-11 Kailash Nath, PW-12 Chhagna Ram and PW-13 Manglaram and produced 21 exhibits from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-21. The incriminating evidence adduced against the accused was put to them for explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the prosecution evidence is false and in their defence, they produced 4 witnesses, namely DW-1 Ladu Das, DW-2 Chhotu Das, DW-3 Panni Devi and PW-4 Ganesh Das. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 326/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them with imprisonment and fine. 6. Against the aforesaid ,judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused-petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur. The learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case for retrial with the direction to the trial Court to frame the charges in the light of the discussion made in the appellate order and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. The accused-petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court, have preferred this revision petition praying infer alia that the order of the appellate Court may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after considering the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the First Information Report as well as in the statement recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there was no specific allegations of any injury inflicted by any specific accused, therefore, the charges were framed by the learned trial Court to the effect that the accused while being members of unlawful assembly caused simple and grievous injuries by sharp and blunt weapons to the injured, thus, the charges as framed by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the order of the learned appellate Court is not legal or proper one. 9. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor defended the judgment of the learned appellate Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record submitted for my perusal including the copy of First Information Report as well as the certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so also the copy of the charge framed by the learned trial Court. In the First Information Report, it was clearly stated that 8 persons, whose names are referred in the First Information Report, have caused injuries by arms carried by them and there is mention of the arms like, Kassis, Kulharis, iron rods, Dantlis and lathis, thus, in view of the facts narrated in the First Information Report as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it cannot be ascertained that which injury was caused by which specific accused. The object of Section 149 I.P.C. is that if any injury is caused in furtherance of common object of any unlawful assembly, then all the members of the unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for the alleged offence. In view of this, the charges framed by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, the order passed by the learned appellate Court suffers from illegality and impropriety. 11. Accordingly, the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur is set aside and the learned appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties.Revision petition allowed. *******