Dismissed

Madhu Sudan Kabra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2018CRLA/370/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained two connected criminal appeals. In one, the court disposed of the appellant's challenge as infructuous since he had served the full sentence and did not contest conviction. In the other, the court dismissed the complainant's appeal for sentence enhancement as not maintainable under Cr.P.C. and without service motive.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as not maintainable.

Madhu Sudan Kabra Vs State of Rajasthan and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 370 / 2010

Madhu Sudan Kabra

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan and Others

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 279 / 2010 Mukesh Gujar ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent CRLA No.370/2010 : For Appellant(s) : Mr. Eliyas Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mirza Ishrat Beg For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor CRLA No.279/2010 : For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Ishrat Beg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Eliyas Ali For the State Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA / Judgment/

¶11

16/01/2018 :

¶12

Per Court (ORAL) :

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.279/2010 (Mukesh Vs. State)

¶14

The present appellant, namely Mukesh son of Bherulal, along with co-accused, namely Pintu @ Doga @ Mukesh son of Chandan was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.2,

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLA-370/2010]

¶17

Bundi (Rajasthan), in Sessions Trial No.72/2008.

¶18

The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 09.04.2010, convicted the present appellant and co-accused – Pintu @ Doga @ Mukesh for offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶19

Having convicted the present appellant for the above said offences, the ld. trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under :-

¶20

“For offence u/s. 307 I.P.C. appellant was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

¶21

For offence u/s.3/25 of the Arms Act, appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment.

¶22

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.”

¶23

The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is that on 13.08.2008 at around 10:00 A.M. the complainant – Madhusudan Kabra (PW-1) was watching television in his room and his wife Smt. Urmila Kabra (PW-2) was standing in the balcony for drying clothes. At that time, on a motorcycle, Mukesh came along with one another person, who was sitting as pillion rider. Mukesh asked Smt. Urmila Kabra (PW-2) to call complainant – Madhusudan Kabra (PW-1) outside the house. The complainant – Madhusudan Kabra (Pw-1) stated that he knew Mukesh and as he had already given a threat to liquidate him. It is further case of the prosecution that Mukesh took out a revolver and fired a shot at complainant. The complainant sat on the ground and saved himself. The accused fired another shot and the same had also missed the target.

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CRLA-370/2010]

¶26

Mr. Mirza Ishrat Beg, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant – Mukesh, has submitted that at the time of admission of the present appeal, the sentence awarded upon the appellant was not suspended because of his antecedents. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence.

¶27

Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant – Mukesh, has contended that co-accused of the appellant, namely Pintu @ Doga @ Mukesh has already undergone the entire sentence and he has not preferred any appeal. Counsel has further contended that since the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence, he has no instructions to pursue the present appeal.

¶28

The ld. trial Judge has placed reliance upon the testimony of complainant – Madhusudan Kabra (PW-1).

¶29

Since the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence and his Counsel has not assailed the conviction, this Court has no option, except to affirm the conviction and sentence awarded upon the appellant and, therefore, the present appeal ( S.B. Criminal Appeal No.279/2010 (Mukesh Vs. State) is disposed of, having been rendered infructuous.

¶30

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.370/2010 (Madhusudan Kabra Vs. State)

¶31

Instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the complainant, namely Madhusudan Kabra praying therein that the sentence awarded upon the accused-respondents, namely Mukesh and Pintu @ Doga @ Mukesh be enhanced.

¶32

The attention of Mr. Eliyas Ali, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-appellant, was drawn to the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which vests no right in the complainant to file an appeal for

(4 of 4)

[CRLA-370/2010]

enhancement.

By virtue of Section 377 Cr.P.C., the appeal for enhancement can only be filed by the State. No appeal has been filed by the State.

¶37

Otherwise also, instant appeal pertains to the year, 2010 and the accused-respondents have already undergone the entire sentence, hence, no ground for enhancement of sentence is made out.

¶38

Consequently, the present appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.370/2010) preferred by the complainant-appellant is dismissed, as not maintainable.

¶39

Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶40

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) J.

¶41

ashok

Madhu Sudan Kabra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Sudan Kabra 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

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs Gopal Ram

Ramjya @ Ramji Lal Vs State

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dayal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mukesh Gujar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.