Allowed

Sarajudeen v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2022CRLAS/1051/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an S.B. Criminal Appeal framing of charges against three appellants for abetment to commission of cognizable offences. The court set aside the order framing charges as there was no sufficient evidence to presume the appellants were accomplices.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal set aside, order of framing of charges quashed, case returned for reconsideration on framing of charges.

Sarajudeen Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1051/2021

¶3

Sarajudeen S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Gurjar Musalman, R/o Valmiki Basti, Bandra Baas, Backside Jishans Shop, P.s. Kotgate, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶4

Bablu @ Abdul Rahman S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Gurjar Musalman, R/o Valmiki Basti, Bandra Baas, Backside Jishans Shop, P.s. Kotgate, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶5

Mohammad Imtiyaj S/o Ramjan, Aged About 22 Years, B/ c Gurjar Musalman, R/o Near Railway Station, Prem Nagar Abu Road, District Sirohi At Present Tenant Of Bablu Valmiki, Basti Bandra, Sawa Lakhi Talai, P.s. Kote Gate, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State, Through Pp

¶9

Baluram S/o Late Chhailaram, B/c Valmiki, R/o Goga Gate, Bandra Baas, Before Valmiki Basti, Kotgate, Bikaner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Deendayal Chitlangi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh, P.P.
	Mr.	B.S. Mertiya

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

¶13

10/02/2022

¶14

01;g nkafMd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDrx.k us fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] fof'k"V U;k;ky;] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ ,oa vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] chdkusj ds }kjk ls'ku izdj.k la[;k 26@2020 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-09-2021 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 302@34 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] /kkjk 4@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ,oa /kkjk 3(2)(V) vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLAS-1051/2021]

¶17

vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼v-fu-½ vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi fojfpr dj lquk, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZA

¶18

02eSaus ;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDrx.k] ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd ,oa ;ksX; vf/koDrk ifjoknh dh cgl lquh ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶19

03;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDrx.k us ;g rdZ fn;k fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 3(2)(V) vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼v-fu-½ vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi ugha curk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k us erd dks vuqlwfpr tkfr dk gksuk tkurs gq, vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gks] ,slk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vafdr ugha gSA fdlh Hkh lk{kh us /kkjk 161 naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds dFkuksa esa ;g dFku ugha fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us erd dks vuqlwfpr tkfr dk gksuk tkurs gq, mlds lkFk ekjihV dh gks] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k ds }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 3(2)(V) vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼v-fu-½ vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus dk tks vkns'k fn;k og vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ls vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa fuEufyf[kr uthjsa is'k dh] ftudk eSaus llEeku voyksdu fd;k %&

¶20

Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2019 Khuman Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India, Decided on 27.08.2019.

¶21

Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 Hitesh Verma Vs The State of Uttarakhand and Another, Supreme Court of India, Decided on 05.11.2020

¶22

04;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k fd;kA

¶23

05;ksX; vf/koDrk ifjoknh us ;g rdZ fn;k fd thrw ¼erd½ o vfHk;qDrx.k ds e/; iwoZ esa Hkh ekjihV gqbZ] ftldk izdj.k la[;k 05 fnukad 05-01-2020 /kkjk 323] 341] 327] 382 o 143 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa ntZ gqvkA thrw ¼erd½ o vfHk;qDrx.k ,d&nwljs ls iwoZ ifjfpr FksA vfHk;qDrx.k dks ;g tkudkjh Fkh fd thrw ¼erd½ okfYedh gSA thrw ¼erd½ ds okfYedh gksuk tkurs gq, mlds lkFk ekjihV dh gS] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k dk leFkZu djrs gq, iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CRLAS-1051/2021]

¶26

06eSaus mi;qZDr ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA iqfyl Fkkuk dksVxsV] chdkusj ds }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) izLrqr vkjksi&i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd fnukad 04-01-2020 dks thrw o mlds lkfFk;ksa us ljktqnhu ls 'kjkc ds fy, #i;s ekaxs( ftl ij ljktqnhu us euk dj fn;kA rc lcus feydj ljktqnhu o vyh'ksj ds lkFk ekjihV dj pksVsa dkfjr dha] ftldk izdj.k la[;k 05 fnukad 05-01-2020 dks ntZ gqvkA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Hkh thrw ¼erd½ o vfHk;qDrx.k ds e/; iwoZ ls jaft'k gksus dk mYys[k gSA jaft'k dk rF; vfHkys[k ls izdV gksrk gS] blfy, vfHk;qDrx.k dk thrw ¼erd½ ls iwoZ ifjfpr gksuk Hkh n`f"Vxr gksrk gSA tc dksbZ ,d&nwljs ls iwoZ ifjfpr gksrs gSa rc vkil esa ,d&nwljs ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gksus ds rF; ls Hkh budkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶27

07vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds izØe ij U;k;ky; dks izFke n"V~;k (prima facie) ;g fopkj djuk gksrk gS fd D;k vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dk;Zokgh fd, tkus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA U;k;ky; ls ;g vis{kk ugha dh tkrh gS fd og lk{; dk ewY;kadu dj bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaps fd vfHk;qDr dks nks"kfl) djus ds fy, izLrqr dh xbZ lkexzh i;kZIr gS ;k ugh **a** A ;fn U;k;ky; dh larqf"V gks tkrh gS fd vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkxs dk;Zokgh dh tkus ds fy, izFke n"V~;k izdj.k curk gS rks vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶28

08U;kf;d n"Vkar (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 703 Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani Versus State of Maharashtra ds i"B la[;k 704 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd %&

¶29

"At the stage of framing of the charge the court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. The court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. Each case depends upon its particular facts and circumstances and

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CRLAS-1051/2021]

¶32

sometimes even a remote link between the activities of an accused and the facts of the case may justify a reasonable inference warranting a judicial finding that there is ground for presuming that an accused has committed the offence or at least to presume that the question of his being directly or indirectly involved in the commission of such offence is not to be ruled out."

¶33

09vr% mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k mfpr ,oa fof/klEer izrhr gksrk gSA vk{ksfir vkns'k esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha gS] blfy, iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶34

10ifj.kker% iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] fof'k"V U;k;ky;] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ ,oa vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] chdkusj ds }kjk ls'ku izdj.k la[;k 26@2020 jkT; cuke ljktqnhu o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-09-2021 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

¶35

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶36

82-Rajendra/-

¶37

;g vkns'[email protected]; vkt fnuakd 10-02-2022 dks Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348(i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dk s izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA

Sarajudeen v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarajudeen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Singh Vs Jaswant Kumar

Mere Khan @ Sattar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Vs Union of India through Special Pp- Cbn

Rajendra @ Lala Vs State of Rajasthan

Debu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan