Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1064 (RAJ)

Jabid v. State of Rajasthan, through P. P.

2021-07-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellant Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 115/2018, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:— Offence for which convicted Substantive sentence Fine and default sentence Section 452 IPC Three years’ simple imprisonment Fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 15 days Section 397 IPC Seven years’ simple imprisonment Fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one month 2. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. 4. Pannaram (P.W.3), the first informant, lodged a written report (Ex.P/4) at the Police Station Sadar, Nagaur on 03.06.2018 alleging inter alia that on that day, he had gone for labour work. At around 1.30-1.40 p.m., an unknown man about 5-5½ feet height wearing a black coloured t-shirt and a brown pant came around to his house on a CD Delux motorcycle and knocked on the door. At that time, the informant's wife Jashoda and their son Rakesh were sleeping. The informant's wife opened the door and the main requested some water to drink and therefore, responding to the man's request, she went inside to get the same. As soon as she turned to go in, the unknown man rushed into the house, pushed the lady down on the ground and snatched her Bor, Tiddipalka and earrings. He was holding a knife and was continuously threatening her in a sinister tone that if she shouted, she would be killed. The assailant after snatching all her ornaments, made an escape on the motorcycle. The informant's wife rushed to the neighbours and told them of her plight. They then called the informant on mobile and apprised him of the incident. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 89/2018 (Ex.P/5) came to be registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 379 and 382 IPC. 5. The appellant was apprehended on 06.07.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P/7 and was kept Baparda. He gave voluntary information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/12) to the Investigating Officer. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 89/2018 (Ex.P/5) came to be registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 379 and 382 IPC. 5. The appellant was apprehended on 06.07.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P/7 and was kept Baparda. He gave voluntary information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/12) to the Investigating Officer. Acting in furtherance thereof, a Tiddipalka (Kollar) and a Bor made of gold-like metal were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/9. The accused himself was subjected to test identification at the hands of the complainant's wife Smt. Jasoda (P.W.1). She correctly identified him from amongst other persons put up for identification. 6. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 454, 382 and 398 IPC. As the offence under Section 398 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur. Charges were framed against the appellant for the above offence. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the appellant denied the same and claimed to be innocent, but did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. 9. Mr. Naman Mohnot, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is absolutely unjustified. The identification of the appellant by the complainant is defective and unreliable. The recoveries of the ornaments are fabricated. On these submissions, Mr. Mohnot sought acceptance of the appeal. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and contended that the victim Smt. Jashoda (P.W.1) correctly identified the appellant as the assailant in the test identification parade as well as during her sworn testimony. On these submissions, Mr. Mohnot sought acceptance of the appeal. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and contended that the victim Smt. Jashoda (P.W.1) correctly identified the appellant as the assailant in the test identification parade as well as during her sworn testimony. The ornaments, which were looted by the appellant from the victim after threatening with a knife, were recovered at the instance of the appellant in furtherance of the voluntary information (Ex.P/12) provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. These ornaments were also correctly identified by the victim in the test identification proceedings as well as in the sworn testimony before the court. He, thus, urges that the prosecution has proved its case as against the appellant by leading unimpeachable evidence and hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. On these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar, perused the impugned judgment and have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 12. The written report (Ex.P/4) came to be submitted by the complainant Pannaram after the incident with clear allegations that an unknown assailant came around to his house, knocked the door and while informant's wife was acting with kindness and was bringin him water, the assailant took out a knife, threatened the lady, pushed her to the ground and robbed her ornaments. The principal witnesses of the prosecution are Jashoda (P.W.1), Rakesh (P.W.2), Pannaram (P.W.3) and Banshilal (P.W.9). 13. On a perusal of the evidence of Jashoda (P.W.1), it becomes clear that she affirmatively identified the accused appellant as being the assailant, who knocked the door of her house on the fateful day and asked for water. When the lady was trying to bring water for the assailant, he took out a knife and under threat thereof, the Tiddipalka (Kollar) and the Bor of the appellant were forcibly looted from her. The lady correctly identified her ornaments, which had been recovered at the instance of the accused during the course of investigation. The ornaments were opened in the court and the lady correctly identified them to be hers. She also identified the accused appellant as being the assailant. The lady correctly identified her ornaments, which had been recovered at the instance of the accused during the course of investigation. The ornaments were opened in the court and the lady correctly identified them to be hers. She also identified the accused appellant as being the assailant. As the appellant was not known to the victim, she was subjected to test identification and the lady correctly identified the accused vide identification proceedings noted in the memo Ex.P/1. A perusal of the entire statement including extensive cross-examination conducted from the victim lady, I am of the firm view that she has given clinching evidence regarding the incident or robbery under threat of knife against the appellant. She also correctly identified the appellant as the offender. The looted ornaments were correctly identified by the lady in her testimony. Manifestly, the appellant was not known to the lady from before and thus, she had no reason to give false evidence against him. Thus, the testimony of the lady has to be considered as unimpeachable and worthy of reliance. 14. The child witness Rakesh (P.W.2), aged 16 years, also corroborated the testimony of the Jashoda (P.W.1) to the hilt and could not be shaken in cross-examination. 15. Pannaram (P.W.3) proved the First Information Report and other documents prepared during investigation. Since he was not an eye-witness, his testimony is not of much relevance. 16. Murarilal Sharma (P.W.4), the Executive Magistrate, proved the proceedings pertaining to the identification of the accused (Ex.P/1) and the looted property (Ex.P/2). The witness could not be shaken in cross-examination. 17. Banshilal (PW.9) was posted as ASI at the Police Station Sadar, Nagaur on the date of the incident. He proved the relevant steps of investigation to the hilt. Nothing significant could be extracted in the cross-examination conducted from the FSL. 18. Witnesses Shriram (P.W.7) and Raju Goran (P.W.8) were associated in the recovery proceedings and they gave convincing evidence to support the process of recovery. 19. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved its case as against the appellant by unimpeachable, trustworthy and credible evidence. The impugned judgment was arrived at after apropos analysis and discussion of the evidence available on record and the same does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal warranting interference therein. The impugned judgment was arrived at after apropos analysis and discussion of the evidence available on record and the same does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal warranting interference therein. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 115/2018 against the appellant Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed is affirmed. 20. The appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.