Dismissed

Surgyan Saini v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2017CRLLA/248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the private complainant's application for leave to appeal against the enhancement of sentence, holding it non-maintainable under Section 377 Cr.P.C. and upholding that separate conviction under Section 326 IPC was unnecessary for injuries already covered by Section 307 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence filed by private complainant was rejected.

Surgyan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 248 / 2017 Surgyan Saini S/o Lujaram B/c Mali, R/o Ward No. 12 Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

¶3

----Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶6

Narayanram S/o Mularam B/c Saini, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Ward No. 12 Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.)

¶7

Mohanlal S/o Narayanram B/c Saini, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.)

¶8

Smt. Gyrasi Devi W/o Narayanram B/c Saini, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.)

¶9

Geegram S/o Ramdev B/c Mali, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Raj.

¶10

Nanuram S/o Govataram B/c Saini, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 12 Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.)

¶11

Baluram S/o Hadmaan B/c Kumhar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.)

¶12

Heeralal S/o Narayanram B/c Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Khetri, Police Station Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.) ----Respondents

¶13

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Jangir For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP for State

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶15

Order

¶16

21/11/2017

¶17

Accused-respondents were convicted for offences under Sections 307 r.w. 149 IPC. In the present appeal filed by the complainant prayer for enhancement of sentence has been made.

¶18

Attention of the learned counsel has been drawn to the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. As per the said Proviso, complainant

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLLA-248/2017]

¶21

cannot file any appeal for enhancement of sentence.

¶22

Under Section 377 Cr.P.C., appeal for enhancement of sentence can only be filed by the State. Therefore, prayer made in the present application for leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence being not maintainable, is rejected.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has erred in recording acquittal of all the accused for offences under Sections 326, 326/149 and 120B IPC and acquittal of accused-respondents No.5, 6 and 7 for offences under Sections 147, 148 IPC.

¶24

Learned counsel could not demonstrate any specific injury falling within the ambit of Section 326 IPC which will constitute offence under Section 320 IPC dehors of the injuries for which conviction for offence under Section 307 IPC was recorded. Since taking grievous injury to be dangerous to life the trial court has sentenced the accused-respondents for offence under Section 307 IPC, a separate conviction of the accused for the very said injury under Section 326 IPC was not called for. Hence, no interference in the application preferred by the complainant is warranted.

¶25

Consequently, present application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶26

However, observations made in this order shall not preclude this court to alter the sentence in the appeal preferred by the accused-respondents.

¶27

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶28

Govind/

Surgyan Saini v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surgyan Saini v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hari Nayak Vs Ranjeet Kumar Malik and Anr.

Kailashchand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Janki Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

M/S Shrawani Hp Gas Agency Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shiv Datt Sharma Vs State Education Department Anr.