Allowed

Mohd.Saleem Son of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2023CRLA/381/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction under Section 307 of IPC, the High Court acquitted the appellant as the sole injured witness turned hostile and failed to identify the appellant. The court held that no other witness proved the appellant's involvement.

What did the court decide?

The order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1993 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted from charge under Section 307 of IPC.

Mohd.Saleem Son of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:18291]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 381/1993

¶4

Mohd.saleem Son Of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh, r/o. Baseda Mohalla Jhalawar, District - Jhalawar (Raj.) (Presently confined in District Jail, Jhalawar)

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh Rajawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment

¶11

Date of Reserve : 12/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17/07/2023

¶12

The present appeal is preferred aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1993 in Sessions Case No. 82/1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.2,000/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon the grounds of appeal has submitted that the star-witness was PW-6Jumma Khan, lone injured in the matter, who turned hostile and did not corroborated the story of prosecution. He further submitted that PW-2 Heeralal, PW-7 Gafoor Mohd. and PW-8 Kanwarlal have also not corroborated the story of prosecution. He further referred discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses to submit that unless there was sufficient reason to believe or disbelieve, on deposition of some witnesses, a

[2023:RJ-JP:18291]

[CRLA-381/1993]

(2 of 3)

conclusion of conviction cannot be drawn. He submitted that in this case even it was not proved that the appellant had inflicted blows on injured-Jumma Khan. He further referred the contradiction in the statement of Dr. G.S. Chouhan to submit that nowhere it was proved that injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further submitted that there was delay in registration of FIR and no weapon was exhibited during evidence and same was not sent for examination by FSL.

¶18

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

For the incident of 12.12.1990, an FIR was registered on 13.12.1990, but Parchabayan was recorded on 12.12.1990 itself, so there was no delay in reporting matter to the police. Injured was examined as PW-6 before the Trial Court and before being declared hostile by the prosecution, he failed to name or identify the person, who inflicted injuries upon him. PW-6 Jumma Khan did not corroborated the story of prosecution on the point of involvement of present appellant.

¶20

In cross-examination, PW-6 clearly admitted that when he was attacked there was no one near him meaning thereby he denied presence of anyone. It further indicated that as per PW-6, there was no eye-witness, who witnessed the incident. PW-2 Heeralal and PW-5 Vijay Pal Singh were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-7 Gafoor Mohd., who was travelling with PW-8 Kanwarlal was of hearse witness and he did not supported the prosecution to name present appellant for causing knife blows to PW-6. PW-8 Kanwarlal was travelling with PW-7 but he stated in

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:18291]

[CRLA-381/1993]

his examination-in-chief that the appellant had inflicted 2-3 knife blows upon PW-6. When PW-8 was recalled by the Court then he denied involvement of present appellant. Thus, except PW-8, no witness deposed against present appellant.

¶25

Having considered the aforesaid and material on record.

¶26

The involvement of present appellant was not proved by injured or any other eye-witness unless involvement is proved, the appellant, cannot be found guilty for alleged assault said to be committed by him upon PW-6 Jumma Khan.

¶27

In view of deposition of PW-6 and other witnesses, involvement of present appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, there was no other witness, which can be considered to presume involvement of present appellant. Therefore, learned Trial Court has committed serious error in fastening liability on present appellant for alleged assault on injured PW-6 Jumma Khan.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶29

Hence, the present appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1993 in Sessions Case No. 82/1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, is hereby allowed and the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.09.1993, is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted from charge under Section 307 of IPC.

¶30

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶32

PKS/81

Mohd.Saleem Son of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Saleem Son of Shri Hakim Khwajbaksh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sandeep Sain S/O Shri Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyaveer Singh S/O Sh. Maal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Amarchand Mawar S/O Shri Goduram Mawar Vs State of Rajasthan

Anuradha Sharma W/O Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs Murlidhar Sharma S/O Shri Goru Lal B/C Brahmin

Ashok Kumar Pabuwal S/O Shri J.K. Pabuwal Vs Mohammed Abdul Hai S/O Late Kayuum Bhai Proprietor Kayuum Motors

Shyam Sundar Verma Son of Late Surajmal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.