Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1055 (RAJ)

Hajar v. State of Rajasthan.

2013-05-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur, Headquarter Deeg in Sessions Case No.30/2009 (92/2006), whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: For the offence under Section 399: Sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs. 3000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' SI For the offence under Section 402 Indian Penal Code : Three years' RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' SI Accused appellants Hajar and Farid S/o Mamla have been convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act also and sentenced to undergo 1 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.2.2006, one FIR was filed by the Police Officer, (Ex.-17) being FIR No. 82/2006 at Police Station, Deeg, wherein it was stated that occurrence took place at Village Khoh, where PW-8 Satish Kumar Yadav, SHO went and nabbed the accused appellants, who were planning of committing dacoity. The police officer also recovered Rs. 7,85,000/- from the accused appellants. After investigation, the police submitted a challan for the offence under Section 399, 402, 307, 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused appellants, and which were read over and explained to them. Accused appellants denied the same and claimed trial. Thereafter the prosecution has submitted the witnesses and exhibited some documents. The statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, acquitted the accused appellants for the offences under Section 307 and 420 Indian Penal Code , but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. On behalf of accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla, Mr. Vineet Dixit, Advocate is appearing; on behalf of accused appellant Khurshid, Mr. S.S. Sunda, Advocate is appearing, while on behalf of accused appellant Farid S/o Rahmat, Mr. Sudhir Jain, Advocate is appearing.Accused appellants Khurshid and Farid S/o Rahmat 5. 4. On behalf of accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla, Mr. Vineet Dixit, Advocate is appearing; on behalf of accused appellant Khurshid, Mr. S.S. Sunda, Advocate is appearing, while on behalf of accused appellant Farid S/o Rahmat, Mr. Sudhir Jain, Advocate is appearing.Accused appellants Khurshid and Farid S/o Rahmat 5. At the very out-set Mr. Sunda and Mr. Sudhir Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of accused appellants Khurshid and Farid S/o Rahmat respectively have requested to this Court that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of trial court, but they are only requesting to this Court that sentence of the accused appellants should be reduced for the period already undergone by them in confinement and if not, in such circumstances, the benefit of Section 433 CrPC should be given to them.Accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla 6. So far as accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla are concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Vineet Dixit appearing on their behalf has contended that the trial court has not assessed the evidence submitted by both the parties before the court below. He has further contended that a false and frivolous allegation has been levelled against the accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla. The accused appellants Hajar, Arshad and Farid S/o Mamla are the agriculturist and they submitted a document before the IO of the case subsequently, which shows that they sold the agricultural land and for the purpose of purchasing the tractor, the above money was lying with the appellants. The police officer has falsely implicated the accused appellants, misusing his power and lodged the FIR. The trial court has acquitted the accused appellants from the offence under Section 307 and 420 Indian Penal Code . He has further contended that the entire prosecution witnesses are the police personnel and there is no independent witness, except the police officer, which shows that the entire case is baseless. He has further contended that there are material contradictions and material omissions with regard to the offence pertaining to preparation of dacoity. He has further contended that there is no independent witness regarding recovery also. He has further contended that there is no evidence that arm was loaded nor there is any conversation which can be said to have been heard. He has further contended that there is no independent witness regarding recovery also. He has further contended that there is no evidence that arm was loaded nor there is any conversation which can be said to have been heard. He has further contended that Prakash Karat, who is said to be important witness, was not produced on behalf of the prosecution, hence the impugned judgment of the court below be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has further contended that trial court, after due consideration of the evidence, convicted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 399, 402 Indian Penal Code and 3/25 of Arms Act. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the evidence, which has been discussed by the trial court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also scanned the the judgment of the trial court. 9. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the evidence, which has been discussed by the trial court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also scanned the the judgment of the trial court. 9. Relevant part of the judgment of the trial court, convicting the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences, is as under: vfHk;kstu lk{; ls tSlk fd Li"V gqvk gS ?kVuk ds oDr vfHk;qDr gktj ds dCts ds tfj;s inz'kZ ih&4 ,oa dV~Vk 12 cksj o mldh isaV dh tsc esa ls ,d ftUnk dkjrwl 12 cksj o dV~Vk ds pSEcj esa [kkyh dkjrwl cjken dj mls ih0MCyw 8 lrh'k ;kno }kjk ekSds ij gh lhy eksgj dj ekdZ , o ch ls fpUghr fd;k gS rFkk vfHk;qDr Qjhn iq= ekeyk ds dCts ls ,d dV~Vk ns'kh 12 o nks ftUnk dkjrwl ds tfj;s iznZ'k ih&5 tIr fd;k x;k] ftldh iqf"V ih0MCyw 4 egsUnz flag vkSj ih0MCyw 9 ihre flag us vius c;ku esa dh gSA ih0MCy;w 6 cgkjnwj flag dk dFku gS fd fnukad 3-3-2006 dks og iqfyl ykbu Hkjriqj esa vkeksZjj ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj ml fnu Mhx Fkkuk vk;k gqvk FkkA Mhx Fkkus dh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 82@06 ls lEcfU/kr rgjhjh fjiksVZ vkSj QnZ tCrh ds lkFk 3 lhy cUn iSdsV ftl ij ,l0ds0okbZ0 vafdr Fkk] gjh flag mifujh{kd us fujh{k.k ds fy, esjs le{k izLrqr fd;k ftudks lhy rksM+dj ;kaf=d fujh{k.k fd;kA iSdsV ekdZ , es0 ,e0ch0ch0,y fiLVy esa 12 cksj fcuk uEcjh gLrfufeZr ftldk Qk;j ,D'ku lgh dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vkSj Qk;j djuh dh ;ksX;rk vkSj tks Qk;j vkeZ dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk Fkk o blh iSdsV esa ,d dkjrwl 12 cksj ftUnk Qk;j djus ;ksX; Fkk tks Qk;j ,E;wfu'ku dh ifjHkk"kk esa Fkk rFkk iSdsV ch esa ,d dkjrwl 12 cksj [kkyh [kks[kk Qk;j fd;k gqvk] iSdsV lh esa ,d l0ch0ch0,y0 12 cksj fcuk uEcjh gLrfufeZr Qk;j djus ;ksX; tks Qk;jkvkeZ dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS rFkk mlh iSdsV esa nks dkjrwl 12 cksj ftUnk Qk;j djus ;ksX; Fkk tkS vkXus;'kkL= dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA ftldh fjiksZV izn'kZ ih&14 mldh Lo;e dh dyeh gS ftl ij , ls ch mlds gLrk{kj gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd tkap djus ds ckn mu iSdsVksa esa dV~Vs o dkjrwlksa dks j[kdj iqu% lhy fd;k vkSj izn'kZ ih&14 ij ,Dl0 okbZ o tSM LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr dh rFkk gjhflag vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh lhy cUn dj fujh{k.k fjiksVZ lkSaihA bl lk[kh ds dFku ds le; U;k;ky; esa dV~Vk vkVhZ 01] dkjrwl vkVhZ 02] vkVhZ 03 o vkVhZ 04 o vU; dV~Vk vkVhZ 05 ogh gksuk crk;k gS ftldh mlus tkap fjiksVZ rS;kj dh FkhA ftjg esa dgk gS fd mlus Vwy vkSj xst ds vk/kkj ij tkap dh FkhA bl rjg ls vfHk;qDr gktj rFkk Qjhn ds dCts ls cjken fd;s x;s dV~Vk lk{kh cgknqj flag vkSj mldh tkap fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&14 ds vuqlkj vk;q/k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSa rFkk mudh cjken fd;s x;s ftUnk dkjrwl Qk;j ,E;wfu'ku dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA Lohd`r :i ls gktj vkSj Qjhn ds ikl bu vk;q/kksa dks j[kus dk vius ikl dksbZ oS/k vuqKk i= ugha FkkA 10. In view of above, I find that the reasons given by learned trial court for convicting the accused appellants are cogent and valid and I do not see any ground to differ from them. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, I direct the concerned Jail authorities to give the benefit of Section 433 Cr.PC to the accused appellants, in accordance with law.Appeal Dismissed *******