Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1536 (RAJ)

Anand v. State

2015-08-18

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— Both the revision petitions, one by petitioner himself through post and another through counsel on behalf of petitioner, have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Cr.Appeal No. 11/2008 (381/2007) whereby he has partly allowed the appeal filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by learned Judl. Magistrate (Ist Class) No. 6, Ajmer whereby he has passed the following order: vfHk;qDr lUuh mQZ ,ssjksu iq= Lo- Jh fjpMZ bZful tkfr lkalh fuoklh lkalh cLrh Hkxokuxat vtesj dks vkjksfir vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 392@34 Hkk-n-la- esa rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o 2000@& :- ¼nks gtkj½ :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gSA vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M vfHk;qDr dks ,d ekg dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl i`Fkd ls Hkqxrk;k tkosA vfHk;qDr vkuan iq= Lo- dey tkfr lkalh fuoklh iap nqxkZyky ds ikl lkalh cLrh Hkxokuxat vtesj dks vkjksfir vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 392@34 Hkk-n-la- esa rhu o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa 2000 ¼nks gtkj½ :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gSA vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M vfHk;qDr dks ,d ekg dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl i`Fkd ls Hkqxrk;k tkosA vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk iqfyl ,oa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa O;rhr vof/k ewy ltk vof/k esa ls eqtjk dh tkosA izdj.k esa tCr'kqnk eky lqiqnZxhukesa ij gS] lqiqnxhZukek ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy fu;ekuqlkj fujLr le>k tkosA 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 103/2007 was lodged against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 382 IPC. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and three other accused. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, to which accused denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution got examined as many as 09 witnesses and produced some documents. Statements of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order dated 29.11.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 3. The prosecution got examined as many as 09 witnesses and produced some documents. Statements of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order dated 29.11.2007 convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment and order dated 29.11.2007, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, who vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2011 passed the following order: ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkuUn iq= Lo- dey tkfr lkalh] fuoklh lkalh cLrh Hkxokuxat] iqfyl Fkkuk jkexat vtesj }kjk izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ jkt- ljdkj ds fo:) izLrqr vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkdj vihykFkhZ @vfHk;qDr vkuUn dks /kkjk 392@34 Hkk-n-la- esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h nks"kflf) ds LFkku ij /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-ala- esa vijk/kh ik;k tkdj 6 ekg ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa nks gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gS] vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M vfHk;qDr 15 fnol dk vfrfjDr lk/kkj.k dkjkokl HkqxrsxkA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkuUn }kjk iwoZ esa iqfyl@U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa fcrk;h x;h vof/k /kkjk 428 n-iz-la- ds rgr ewy ltk esa lek;kstu ;ksX; gksxhA vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dk la'kksf/kr ltk okjaV cuk;k tkos rFkk ltk Hkqxrku gsrq dsUnzh; dkjkx`g] vtesj Hkstk tkosA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k fu.kZ; izfr lfgr izsf"kr fd;k tkosA 4. Against the said impugned orders of both the courts below, the accused preferred this revision petitions one through post and another through an Advocate on his behalf. 5. It has been contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate each and every aspect of the matter as also the evidence available on record. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case. Hence impugned orders deserves to be set aside. 6. At this juncture, it has also been brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner has served the complete sentence, therefore, nothing remains in these petitions. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner and requested for maintaining of impugned orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and orders dated 29.11.2007 and 31.5.2011. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner and requested for maintaining of impugned orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and orders dated 29.11.2007 and 31.5.2011. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned appellate court, which are reproduced as under:- tgka rd izekf.kr vijk/k dk iz'u gS] vfHk;kstu dk ;g Lohd`r izdj.k jgk gS fd eksVjlkbZfdy ij ihNs ls vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vkdj ifjoknh dh iRuh ds xys ls pSu [khapus ds ckn os yksx Hkkx x;sA vkjksi i= ,oa vkjksi ,oa nks"kflf) /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-la- ds varxZr dh x;h gS vkSj rRdky migfr dk Hk; crkrs gq, pksjh ds ek/;e ls ywV fd;s tkus dk vkjksi jgk gSA bl lEiw.kZ izdj.k esa ifjoknh i{k dh ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha jgh gS fd bl pSu [khapus ds vijk/k dks dkfjr djrs le; ifjokfnuh Jherh vk'kk dks fdlh izdkj dk migfr vFkok lnks"k vojks/k dkfjr djus dk iz;kl ;k ;g vijk/k dkfjr fd;k x;k gks vFkkZr rRdky migfr ;k vojks/k dk Hk; fn[kk;k x;k gks vkSj fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ pksV bl ?kVuk esa vkus dh ifjoknhx.k dh lk{; ugha jgh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tc ifjoknhx.k dh tkudkjh ds fcuk vizR;kf'kr :i ls pSu [khapdj nksuksa eksVjlkbZfdy lokj Hkkx x;s vkSj fdlh izdkj dk vojks/k ;k migfr dk Hk; ;k dkfjr fd;s tkus dk rF; Li"V izdV ugha gqvk gS rks ;g vijk/k ywV dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha gksdj dsoy /kkjk 378] 379 Hkk-n-ala- ds varxZr pksjh dh lhek rd gh izekf.kr ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj ywV ds vko';d ?kVd migfr ;k lnks"k vojks/k dkfjr djus dk iz;Ru djuk vFkok rRdky migfr o rRdky lnks"k vojks/k vkfn dk Hk; mRiUu djus dk iw.kZ vHkko jgk gSA vr% vfHk;kstu lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr vkuUn ds fo:) vfHk;kstu i{k /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-la- ds LFkku ij /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-ala dk vkjksi ;qfDr;qDr :i ls izekf.kr dj ikus esa lQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qDr ds vijk/k dkfjr djus ds laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ fof/kd vfu;ferrk ugha jgh gS] fdUrq /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-la- ds vUrxZr bl dkfjr vijk/k dks ywV ekus tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gksus ls ;g vijk/k /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-ala- dh ifjf/k rd lhfer jgk gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr vkuUn dks /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-la- esa vijk/kh ik;k tkrk gSA tgka rd n.Mkns'k dk iz'u gS] vfHk;qDr vkuUn dks 3 o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl ,oa 2000 :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k x;k gS tks /kkjk 392 Hkk-n-ala- dk jgk gS] orZeku esa tc vfHk;qDr vkuUn dks /kkjk 379 Hkk-n-la- esa vijk/kh ik;k x;k gS vijk/k dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, mls ifjoh{kk dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj blh vuqikr esa mlds dkjkokl ds n.M 3 o"kZ ds LFkku ij 6 ekg esa ifjofrZr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vFkZn.M esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ifjorZu fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner has served the complete sentence, and the findings arrived at by learned courts below as quoted herein above, the learned courts below are found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and have rightly passed the impugned judgment and orders. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned courts below. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned orders dated 29.11.2007 and 31.5.2011 passed by the courts below, and thus the revision petitions having no force, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and orders dated 29.11.2007 and 31.5.2011 passed by courts below.