Partly allowed

Sultan v. State

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2020CRLA/483/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeals filed by accused persons convicted under sections 148, 307/149 IPC and IPC 323. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by appellants, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The appellant Dasrath Singh was acquitted. Appeal by State against respondent Krishan Kumar's acquittal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appellants in appeals 87 and 483/1987 acquitted and released on bail; appeal by State in 259/1989 dismissed.

Sultan Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTMIAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 500/1987

¶3

Ram Pal-son of Devi Sahai.

¶4

Om Prakash son of Rampat.

¶5

Shiv Charan son of Ram Pat.

¶6

Balwant son of Rampat.

¶7

Prakash son of Bhuria.

¶8

Babu Lal son of Bhuria..

¶9

Bhuria son of All by caste Tijara, District Tp-.% ----Accused-?+ppellantspellants

¶10

I State of Rajasthan. O

¶11

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 507/1987 5?

¶12

Shyam Lal son of Balbir, by caste Ahir, Resident of Barbarpur, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar.

Ve.rsus

State of Rajasthan.

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 259/1989

State of Rajasthan.

----Appellant

Versus

Krishan Kumar son of Shri Ramp:$ by caste Ahir, resident of Udaipur, Police Station Tijara, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar.

¶21

For Appellant(s)

¶22

: Mr. Deepak Sharma for accused %m= ... r ai?p,e'llahks d 81 rnia,ppeals f,~.c No.500/1987 . ankl 507/%~%3~~$a:ccused respondent in Appeal No. 25919g9 %, ,. $-t Mr. Abhi Goyal for appe3pts in appeal No. 483/1987 fa -,, .. Mr. Deshraj Gosingha with &I:$) Bhawani Shankar Sharma the State -respondent in Appeal

appellant in Appeal

For Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR.

17/02/2020

d counsel appearing for the sole appellan I Appeal No.507/1987 has submitted that t Lal has expired. Therefore, the criminal as having been abated.

¶28

In view of above statement,. the criminal appeal No.507/1987 filed by sole appellant Shyam Lal is dismissing as having been abated.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants in Criminal Appeals No.500/1987 and 483/1987 submitted that accused appellants Ram Pat, Bhuria, Matadin and Budharam have

¶30

expired. Therefore, the criminal appeal filed by accused appellants Ram Pat, Bhuria, Matadin and Budharam be dismissed as having been abated.

¶31

In view of above, the criminal appeals filed by accused appellants Ram Pat, Bhuria, Matadin and Budharam is dismissed as having been abated.

¶32

So far as S.B. Criminal Appeals No.500/1987 and 483/1987 filed is concerned, dated sessions n convicted and

sentenced as under:

147 IPC:

307/149 IPC:

sonment and a fine of Rs.200/-. In default further undergo two

¶37

months rigorous impri

¶38

One month rigorous imprisonment.

¶39

(Appeal No.483/1987)

¶40

148 IPC:

¶41

Six months rigorous imprisonment. 307/149 IPC:

¶42

Two and half year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶43

Sentences of the accused appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

¶44

The State has filed S.B. Criminal appeal No. 25911989 under section 378(i) and (iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.03.1989 passed by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, by which the trial court acquitted the respondent- Krishan Kumar from the charge under sections 148, 307

¶45

about 7:00 P.M., din, Nahar Singh, Ramesh, Dayaram, ing 'hukka' in the house of Sultan Sing n Kumar, Balwant Singh, Shiv Charan, , Shyamlal and others started abusing. On as mpat told to kill them. Balwant Singh inflic e leg of Sultan Singh and Krishan Kumar. Krisha on the left leg of Nahar Singh by pisto g lathis and farsha participated in the inci ""% After investie~~&E % 4 % $ x qEFubmitted rg charge-sheet against accused persons. During investigation, accused Krishan Kumar remained absconder as a result of which challan was filed against him under section 299 Cr.P.C. Accused Krishan Kumar was arrested on 1Q.03.1988 and challan was filed against him on 29.03.1988.

¶46

The charges were framed against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶47

The prosecution to prove its case produced eleven witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

¶48

Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. In defence the appellants produced Bhuriya as DW and exhibited certain documents.

¶49

SIBl Criminal Appeal No.259/1989:

¶50

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State +$ yq "&&F argued that the trial&&% fxsp bs,;erred.. 6% seen, then nolqoF8nce under section 307 IP &nt it has been held that other acc ted under section 307 read with section the statements of PW &$%i&,&ingh, it is established that Krishan Kumar, wa injuries received by injured Nahar Singh

¶51

nsel appearing for the accused respondent ued that as per i blow on the leg of b) inflicted injury on the Y -% under sections 146, v&xdqp9 3 1% TZqand C,, , 307 IPC. After %% 4, % 'L investigation the case was challaned. Accused Krishan Kumar was absconding, therefore, the challan was submitted against him under section 299 Cr.P.C. Accused Rampat, Om Prakash, Shiv Charan, Prakash, Babulal, Balwant Singh, Bhuria and Shyam La1 were convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas vide order dated 13.11.1987. No order could be passed in regard to accused Krishan Kumar. Accused Krishan Kumar was arrested on 10.03.1988 and challan was filed against him on 29.03.1988. The

¶52

accused respondent

¶53

Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas after hearing both the sides acquitted the accused Krishan Kumar from the charge under sections 148, 307, 323/149 IPC vide order dated 27.03.1989. Learned counsel argued that the trial court erred in holding that the offence under section 307 read with section 149 IPC is made out. The prosecution has shifted place of occurrence and there is no injury on vital part of injured Sultan and Nahar Singh. The

¶54

he person of s not come with the true t the cross

¶55

complainant side and vide iu$%am&Ji dated 13.11.1987 passed in Sessions Case No. n vs. Sultan & Ors., the accused therei ed counsel placed reliance in the cas Ors. vs. State of

¶56

Bihar, AIR 1976 D.B. Criminal Appeal ~d'. 5

¶57

he accused appellants argued that the find trial court and the conviction of the accu sections 148, 307/149 -% **w **&e-~%* IPC and the accused a~fi~~~~upder"@e&~ons 148, 307/149 and -% *jp rkr 323 IPC are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on record as no offence under sections 148, 307/149 and section 323 IPC is made out against the accused appellants. The incident did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has not come with true version of the incident. The origin and genesis of the occurrence was deliberately withheld and a coloured version of the incident was introduced after due deliberation and concoction. This subterfuge was employed in a

¶58

clandestine manner to falsely implicate innocent persons out of sheer enmity. The complainant party was aggressor and they made an attack on the appellants while they were at their 'guwada' and even if the appellants caused any injury on the complainant party, it was in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property both and as such the appellants are entitled to get benefit of right of private defence as the * # h,., incident had takennpjaceq cv&-<4 4j>3@Sultan. Learned counsel further argued th % F was aggre-swr and they made an attack on the a 'i x^. they w% sitting in the 'guwada' and in suc forming the unlawf s does not arise at all. Further partici appellants in the incident is not at all The trial court erred i nsideration that three accused persons susta t the prosecution has miserably failed to expl tained by the three #pk*# tf, appellants. The non-e$g;.Eaj in the prosecution case. . , >p e>% :?', , ,,; ,<, ..~ . ?;lg.q';'I!L > Nh&tx$4:- :- F .<.W"" a?-;>%.:; ' - . :j.rr; :E.

¶59

Learned counsel for accused appellants argued that the complainant party first inflicted injuries upon the accused party with regard to the same incident and as such even if any injury is received by the complainant party, were inflicted in pursuance of their right of private defence. The complainant and their witnesses having been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of even date by the Addl. Sessions Judge. It is quite clear from the evidence discussed and the findings record-ed

¶60

against the complainant party that the accused used their right of private defence. The injuries sustained on the person of complainant party were in the exercise of their right of private defence of their property.

¶61

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence .- ? .- a "&*$ "--, 447 I a ;&wT@ heard learned counsel ::f~~~-~~the accused .2+?' 3i -4 , - %$&@2& appellantl%rned Public Prosecutor appearing for %textate and Q-2 L .. .., and scrutinized the entire matetgial made ;. * available to me including the ?if ash the case.

¶62

the exact origin and cause of incident as to whether the incident took place in t because the site plan (Ex.P3) does not bear in the disputed 'baraan'. The incident took place moment culminating into

¶63

gh & Qrs. (supra),

¶64

d out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (I) that the evidence of the . prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the ' injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the present case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh .v. The State of Eunjab Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975 : which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows:

¶65

In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1.975 : ) one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows:

¶66

In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the in juries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow:

¶67

(I) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the

ed cannot be

occurrence is

which the C

clearly fall within t two principles laid nt case, either the ing the death of the y the right of private n does not explain the deceased the entire and the genesis of the deep mystery, which is prosecution case. It er case, the noned by the accused at e or in the course of nt circumstance from wing inferences:

¶72

(I) That the prosecution has sup- pressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version:

¶73

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

¶74

('3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

¶75

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of .the prosedition one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasra th Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the Court to rely on the evidence of PWs. I to 4 and 6 more particularly, when some of g that they did not the accused. Thus f$ak~ourt -v appears given due considera tion to(-&& important @ ,." cuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecubion case. Y+@Q,* must hasten to add that as held by th'/qpGpurt in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No. 67 975 : Reported in there -explanation of the y not affect the uld obviously apply ined by the accused ere the evidence is so nt and disinterested, so dit-worthy, that it far on the part of the njuries. The present, case, and the High brushing aside this secution case on P "'y z,-%* In Sessions @@(State of Rajasthan v. Krishan Kumar) vide judgment dated 27.03.1989 the trial court came to the conclusion that PW2 Rajendra Malik in his testimony deposed that there was only one punctured wound on the person of injured Nahar Singh and one wound on the person of injured Sultan Singh and only on the other side Krishan Kumar, Balwant Singh and Prakash received fire arm injury. Krishan Kumar received one injury, Pra kash received two injuries and Balwant

¶76

Singh received five gun shot injuries. PW11- Jeewan Singh, Investigating Officer in his testimony admitted that Balwant Singh, Om Prakash and Krishan Kumar also received gun shot injuries.

¶77

On perusal of evidence and circumstances of the case it is clear that the prosecution has not come out with the true version and the result is that the prosecution has failed to choose to put forward the true version in the case of free fight.

¶78

*; *& '&f "n gsf . , g On the q.+py adrmssi;o?Q madk~bv@!dosecution witnesses, 6. -a f-3 'hex> . it has been p,ovq& that there have been litigations-between these a"Z" t%Jp patties. T@&: very significant factor which in thi!i$r^*gs,e is that 2% o groups of accused. No independent witxses have been examined by the proset!@~b~~~o support the assault. Thus,

¶79

the prosecution has

¶80

appellants beyond r

¶81

The criminal 87 and 483/1987 filed by the accused appellan allowed, the conviction and sentence passed o set aside and they are acquitted of the cha them. The accused appellants are on bail stand cancelled.

¶82

e State against the ""a, -% impugned judgment of~~~$$t~~ @m%zf merit and accordingly %P% 4 ii? *8'-%%4 stands dismissed.

¶83

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., each of the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like am'iiunt, before the trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, I

¶84

the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶85

Record of the court below be returned forthwith.

¶86

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶87

Sharrna NK I363

Sultan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Singh S/O Shri Dyal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mitthu Singh S/O Chiranji B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kedar S/O Harsahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs State

State Vs Krishan Kumar

Fakirchand S/O Shri Umrav Lal Vs State of Rajasthan