Partly allowed

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2018CRLA/935/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding offences under IPC 147, 148, 149, 307, and 353, the court found the prosecution evidence regarding attempted murder improbable. It acquitted the appellant of Section 307 charges but upheld convictions for Section 148 and 353/149 offences involving assault on public servants.

What did the court decide?

Appeal accepted in part; appellant acquitted of Section 307/149 IPC; conviction and sentence under Sections 148 and 353/149 IPC upheld.

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat Vs State of Rajasthan… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 935 / 2015

¶3

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat son of Mangli

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment /

¶10

09/01/2018 :

¶11

Per Court (ORAL) :

¶12

Two separate appeals bearing S.B. Criminal Appeal No.927 of 2015 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2015 preferred by same appellant – Taufiq Khan @ Dhanpat pertaining to two separate Sessions Trial No.63 of 1996 and Sessions Trial No.62 of 1996 shall be decided separately but simultaneously strictly confining to separate evidence led in two separate trials.

¶13

The appellant, namely Taufiq Khan @ Dhanpat was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg District Bharatpur in a case arising out of First Information Report No.114/1992 registered at Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg District Bharatpur, in Sessions Trial Case No.62 of 1996 rendered impugned judgment dated 10.09.2015, wherein the appellant was convicted for

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CRLA-927/2015]

¶17

offences punishable under Sections 148, 353/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Vide a separate order of even date, for the above said offences, the ld. trial Judge sentenced the appellant as under :-

¶19

“For offence u/s.148 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 additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶20

For offence u/s.353/149 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 additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶21

For offence u/s.307/149 I.P.C. appellant was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶22

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.”

¶23

In the present appeal, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence be set aside, and the present appellant be acquitted of the charges.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 8^th and 9^th of March, 1992 at around 01:10 A.M. when the Police party was following the appellant, who had committed theft at the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya, the appellant, along with co-accused had fired shots at A.S.I. Balloram, Jagdish and Gyansingh respectively. It is a further case of the prosecution that the Police party to save themselves sat on the ground and, thus, the shots had not hit the Police

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CRLA-927/2015]

¶27

party and the accused taking benefit of darkness had escaped from the spot.

¶28

Teekam Chand Vaishya in whose shop theft was committed in proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. appeared as PW-2, whereas A.S.I. Balloram appeared as PW-3. Since the appellant had absconded, their statements under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Teekam Chand Vaishya (PW-2) when the accused was apprehended had expired and, hence, his statement under Section 299 Cr.P.C., as urged by the ld. Public Prosecutor, is to be read in evidence. The said statement of Teekam Chand recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is part of the record.

¶29

Anand Prakash (PW-1) has deposed in the Court that on 09.03.1992 he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector. At 01:10 A.M. he was informed by Shyam Lal, a Watchman that some accused had entered into the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya. Upon this, he, along with A.S.I. Balloram, Constable Jagdish, Constable Gyansingh and Pooran Chand reached at the shop. From a distance of 100 meters of the shop of Teekam Chand, the accused starting firing shots at the Police, who were in the uniform. It is stated that Constable - Gyan Singh (PW-8) also fired, in defence of the Police party and the accused ran away from the spot.

¶30

It is undeniable fact that Balloram (PW-3) in the Jail had identified the appellant as the one who had come to the shop of Teekam Chand Vaishya and had fired shots at the Police party.

¶31

Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, is unable to assail the testimony of Balloram (PW-3), who had identified the appellant as the one who had fired shots at the Police party.

¶32

At this juncture, Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has submitted that the story given

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[CRLA-927/2015]

¶35

by the Police is concocted one, as it is improbable fact that none of the Police official at whom shots were fired, was injured. Counsel has further submitted that furthermore, it cannot be believed that even though, the shot was fired by the Police, but none of the accused was injured.

¶36

I have given due consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶37

In the present case, no independent witness has been examined. Teekam Chand Vaishya (PW-2), at whose shop alleged theft was being committed was the best witness and his statement was recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C.

¶38

The story of Police officials is highly improbable, it cannot be believed that even though, the accused had fired numerous shots, none had hit the Police party. The story that the Police party sat on the ground and saved themselves and furthermore, the shots fired by Constable – Gyansingh (PW-8) have not hit the accused is to be taken with pinch of salt. Therefore, it is apparent that the story that the shots were fired at the Police party to commit murderous assaults seems to be an exaggeration.

¶39

Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. However, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant by firing shots in the air or otherwise assaulted the Police party to deter them to apprehend the appellant. Thus, the offence under Sections 148, 353/149 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant.

¶40

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted . The impugned judgment of conviction pronounced and the order awarding sentence upon the appellant under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the above charge. However, the

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CRLA-927/2015]

¶43

impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, qua offences punishable under Sections 148 and 353/149 I.P.C. is upheld.

¶44

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶45

ashok

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taufik Khan @ Dhanpat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Smt Sahuni Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Surajnarain Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Shri Shaitan Singh Vs State

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sonu Kanwar Rathore Vs State Women and Child Development Ors.