Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1457 (RAJ)

Surajmal @ Suriya v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. Both the above criminal appeals are arising out from the judgment dated 7.9.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Pratapgarh (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short) whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused appellants from the offence under Section 398 IPC but convicted them for offence under Sections 395, 397, 458 and 120B IPC and passed the following order of punishment which reads as under:- Under Section 395 R/w Section 397 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months SI. Under Section 458 IPC Seven years SI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI Under Section 120B IPC Seven years SI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per the facts of the case on 23.2.2009 the complainant Devendra Kumar PW-3 filed a written report at Pipalkhut Police Station, District Pratapgarh to the effect that in the night of 23.2.2009 at about 3.30 am he heard noise of crying from the house of his neighbour Narain son of Rama. Upon that he came out from the house and saw that 3-4 persons were coming out from Narains house and entered in his house and looted the ornaments of his wife as well as cash and upon hue and cry they assaulted him, at that time, one Rama S/o Gautam came on the spot, thereafter, they entered in the house of Rama and looted the ornaments of Ramas daughter, wife and Nokia mobile phone bearing no.9983415387 and assaulted them. 3. 3. Upon aforesaid complaint the FIR bearing no.37/2009 was registered under Section 458 and 380 IPC by the SHO Police Station Pipalkhut and after investigation the accused appellants were arrested and on the basis of identification of accused appellants by the witnesses through identification parade and after recovery of articles, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants under Section 458, 395, 397 and 120B IPC while keeping the investigation pending against the accused Raju and Subhash Jain under Section 373(8) of the Cr.P.C. The challan was filed in the court of ACJM, Arnod from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh but later on the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh transferred the case in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum Special Judge (SC/ST Atrocities Act) Cases, Partapgarh for trial. 4. The learned trial court after framing charges against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 120B, 458, 395, 397 and 398 IPC commenced the trial. 5. In the trial to prove the prosecution case the statement of 19 witnesses were recorded including eye witnesses author of FIR PW-3 Devendra Kumar and 46 documents were exhibited. After recording prosecution witnesses the statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied their participation in the alleged incident and produced four witnesses in defence namely DW-1 Bhudiya, DW-2 Kamaru, DW-3 Thawariya and DW-4 Surajmal. 6. The learned trial court finally heard the arguments and acquitted the accused appellants for offence under Section 398 IPC but held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 458, 397, 399 and 120B IPC and passed the aforesaid sentence vide judgment dated 7.9.2010. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants at the threshold argued that the accused appellants were arrested on the basis of identification parade conducted for identification of the accused appellants in which they were identified by the witnesses and recovery of ornaments were made, therefore, accused appellants are not challenging the finding of conviction arrived at by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 395, 458 and 120B IPC but submits that the punishment of life imprisonment under Section 395 IPC is exercised because even if the entire evidence is accepted then also no offence under Section 397 IPC is made out. According to the learned counsel for the appellants it is a case in which the learned trial court erroneously held all the accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 397 IPC because as per Section 397 IPC the offender can be held guilty if the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, in this case, even if the allegation of prosecution is accepted then also it is evident from the prosecution evidence that appellants were having Lathis which cannot be treated as deadly weapon, so also, no grievous hurt found upon the body of any injured person. Further, it is submitted that on perusal of the injury reports Ex.P/1 of Arjun Lal, PW-3 Devendra Kumar (author of FIR), Ex.P/2 of Mangi Lal and Ex.P/13 of Rama, Ex.P/32 injury report of Verseng and Ex.P/33 injury report of Pushpendra it will reveal that all of the injuries found upon their body of all injured were simple/minor grievous in nature, therefore, the case does not fall under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in absence of ingredient of Section 397 IPC the learned trial court has committed a grave error to hold accused appellants guilty for offence under Section 397 IPC. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-12 Dr. Ravi Upadhayay it is submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor when none of the injury found upon the body of Arjun Lal, Devendra Kumar, Mangi Lal, Rama, Verseng and Pushpendra were grievous in nature. Moreover, all the injuries were simple in nature, then obviously finding for offence under Section 397 IPC is not sustainable in law, therefore, the accused appellants may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Section 397 IPC. 9. Moreover, all the injuries were simple in nature, then obviously finding for offence under Section 397 IPC is not sustainable in law, therefore, the accused appellants may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Section 397 IPC. 9. With regard to the conviction under Section 395 IPC it is submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted then also the punishment of life imprisonment to the accused appellant is excessive because as per the fact only simple injuries were caused by the appellants in the incident, therefore, initially the FIR was registered under Sections 380 and 458 IPC, therefore, the maximum punishment which is life imprisonment imposed against the accused appellants deserves to be reduced appropriately because accused appellants are not challenging the finding given by the learned trial court for committing offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. 10. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per the prosecution evidence no offence under Section 397 IPC is made out and for punishment for offence under Section 395 IPC is excessive because maximum punishment provided for such offence which is life imprisonment has been imposed against the accused appellants, therefore, on the basis of totality of circumstances and upon the fact that simple injuries were caused by blunt weapon, it is proved that the sentence awarded to the accused appellants for offence under Section 395 IPC may kindly be reduced to already undergone. 11. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that although initially the FIR was registered under Section 458 and 380 IPC but in the investigation the recoveries of ornaments were made as per information given by the accused appellants and as per the investigation more than five accused appellants were having Lathi in their hand and committed serious offence in the night, therefore, learned trial court arrived at with the finding that offence under Section 458, 397 and 395 IPC made out, therefore, no interference is required in the judgment impugned. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no strength in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that Lathi is not deadly weapon because by Lathi lacerated wound can be caused, therefore, on the basis of above evidence led by the prosecution in the trial it is a case in which the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 458, 397 and 395 read with Section 120B IPC, therefore, both the appeals may kindly be dismissed. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the entire evidence so as to consider the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that no offence under Section 397 IPC is made out. We have perused the Section 397 IPC which reads as under:- "397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years." 13. Upon perusal of the aforesaid Section it is obvious that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to the person he can be punished for the said offence, but in this case, even if the whole prosecution case is accepted then also it emerges from the facts that all the accused appellants were having Lathi in their hand and upon perusal of injury reports and statement of PW-12 Dr. Ravi Upadhayay, we find that all the injuries were simple in nature. Meaning thereby, it is a case in which although accused appellants were having Lathi in their hands but none of the injured received grievous injury in the incident took place on 23.2.2009 in the mid night. In our opinion, due to the simple injuries caused in the incident to all the injured, it cannot be said that there was any intention of the accused appellants to cause grievous hurt or to cause death of all the injured persons. The only intention was to take ornaments and valuable articles from the house of complainant and other persons. In our opinion, due to the simple injuries caused in the incident to all the injured, it cannot be said that there was any intention of the accused appellants to cause grievous hurt or to cause death of all the injured persons. The only intention was to take ornaments and valuable articles from the house of complainant and other persons. In view of the above facts and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that all the injuries were caused with blunt weapon and all the injuries were simple in nature, therefore, under the given and peculiar circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the accused were armed with any deadly weapon. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that conviction of the accused appellants under Section 397 IPC is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that accused appellants are not challenging the finding given by the learned trial court for offence under Section 395 IPC but submits that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned trial court is excessive upon the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore the same may be reduced. In the case of Farid Khan v. State of Rajasthan (DB Cr. Appeal No.720/2008), decided on 28.4.2009 wherein also the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants for life imprisonment for offence under Section 395 IPC but the Division Bench of this Court while following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa & Ors. v. The State of Mysore, reported in 1970 SCC (Cr.) 215 and in the case of Babu Kuttan R. Pillai and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, report in (2001) 9 SC 409, gave the following verdict, which reads as under:- "8. In the present case, the alleged decoity is said to have been taken place when the complainant along with Radhey Shyam were coming back after taking cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs, which has been recovered later on. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the circumstance under which, the offence has been committed and in the light of the cited judgments by the learned counsel for the accused appellants, we deem it just and proper that the ends of justice would meet, if the sentence of the accused appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. 9. 9. Consequently, these criminal appeals are partly allowed. While maintaining the order of conviction for offence under Section 395 IPC against accused appellants Farid Khan, Irshad Ahmed @ Bhattu @ Chikna @ Nafis, Mohd. Salim alias Sarif and Baboo alias Bablu passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Abu Road, District Sirohi by his judgment dated 18.09.2008, their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, which is more than five years. However, the order of fine is maintained. The accused appellants namely Farid Khan, Irshad Ahmed @ Battu @ Chikna @ Nafis, Mohd. Salim alias Sarif and Baboo alias Bablu shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case on depositing of the fine." We have perused the Section 395 IPC so as to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and evidence on record for the prayer for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants. In our opinion, although dacoity is a day devil act and it is a serious crime which is said to be committed by the accused appellants but at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that out of 7-8 persons injured in the incident, but all the injuries found upon the body of all the injured persons were simple in nature, therefore, at the time of passing sentence for the said offence in this case, the learned trial court ought to have consider the entire evidence to pass sentence but without taking into consideration the evidence of this case the maximum punishment which is life imprisonment provided for the offence under Section 395 IPC has been imposed. In our opinion, upon consideration of facts and evidence of this case, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused appellants for offence under Section 395 IPC is excessive. Therefore, we deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the accused appellants. Consequently, both these appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence for offence under Section 397 IPC is set aside. However, the conviction under Section 395, 458 and 120B IPC is maintained but the sentence awarded to the accused appellants for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 395 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside and it is hereby reduced to 7 years. But the conviction and punishment for offence under Section 458 and 120B IPC is maintained.