Dismissed

Ganeshlal v. Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CRLAS/1330/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of six accused persons in Sessions Case No. 4/2012. Upholding the trial court's finding of a free fight between two parties, the bench noted the injured eyewitness's hostility and不足以 to establish guilt beyond doubt, refusing interference with the acquittal under IPC Sections 148, 323, and others.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ganeshlal Vs Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1330/2018

¶3

Ganeshlal S/o Shri Babulal By caste Gujjar, aged about 31 years, Resident of Village Ghhas, Police Station Sadar Tonk,Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Complainant/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ashok Kumar @ Pappu S/o Devilal, By caste Gujjar, Aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Ghhas, Police Station Sadar Tonk,Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶7

Bhajanlal S/o Prahalad By caste Gujjar,Aged about 20 years, Resident of Village Ghhas, Police Station Sadar Tonk,Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶8

Rajaram S/o Rampal @ Ramlal By caste Gujjar,Aged about 35 years, Resident of Lock, Police Station Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶9

4.Ramkalyan S/o Rampal @ Ramlal By caste Gujjar,Aged about 21 years, Resident of Lock, Police Station Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶10

Prahalad S/o Kesarlal By caste Gujjar,Aged about 45 years, Resident of Village Ghhas, Police Station Sadar Tonk,Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Accused- Non- Appellant

¶12

The State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor.

¶13

	----Non- Appellant
For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa with Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya : Mr. Bharat Yadav, Ms. Sonia Shandilya, P.P.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

28/11/2018

¶17

With consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶18

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 28.03.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Sessions Case No. 4/2012. The accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 148, 323, 326, 326/149, 325, 325/149, 452 and 336 IPC.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has acquitted all the accused ignoring the fact that one Kalulal received grievous injuries. He has sustained two fractures and lost his eye sight of left eye. Taking into consideration the allegation against the accused, which have been proved in the trial, accused should have been convicted for the offence, for which charges were framed against them.

¶22

A reference of evidence led by prosecution has been given but learned counsel for the appellant has fairly admitted that injured Kalulal sustained grievous injury, turned hostile, thus not supported the prosecution case. It is also stated that trial Court found it to be a case of free fight between two parties. The injuries have been received by both the parties as they threw stones on each other. The trial Court found that injuries sustained by complainant party were result of free fight thus accused were acquitted of the offences.

¶23

We have heard and decided the appeal in the cross case where one Rajulal from complainant party has been convicted being accused in the case registered at the instance of accused herein, otherwise complainant in the other case. Therein also, other than Rajulal, everyone has been acquitted finding not to be a case under Section 149 IPC. The Court has found it to be a case of free fight between two groups and, accordingly, individual act of the accused was seen.

¶24

[CRLAS-1468/2018]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

Since injured- Kalulal himself has not supported prosecution case and otherwise other witnesses produced by prosecution could not prove the case against accused beyond doubt, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order. It is more so when deciding the appeal of Rajulal, we have recorded detailed finding about the occurrence and, therein, the appeal preferred by accused herein and otherwise complainant in the said case has also been dismissed thus for the reasons given in the connected Appeal Nos. 1468/2018 and 280/2018 and taking into consideration the evidence produced by prosecution in this case, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order of trial Court so as to convict the accused in the case where a free fight took place between the parties.

¶27

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶29

S. Kumawat/36

Ganeshlal v. Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ganeshlal v. Ashok Kumar @ Pappu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramphool Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Hariom S/O Shri Badan Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Matalub S/O Jahir Mohammad B/C Musalmaan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajulal S/O Babulal B/C Gujjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Narendra @ Mahendra S/O Shri Mangal Chand B/C Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Naveen Singh S/O Shri Girdhari Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary (Homes)