D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 10/2013. Case: Devendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court
|Case Number:||D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 10/2013|
|Party Name:||Devendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Jagmal Singh Chuodhary, Sr. Advocate and Amardeep Lamba, Adv. and For Respondents: J.P.S. Choudhary, PP|
|Judges:||Gopal Krishan Vyas and Kailash Chandra Sharma, JJ.|
|Issue:||Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 27, 3, 30; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313, 374; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 304, 34|
|Judgement Date:||February 10, 2017|
|Court:||Rajasthan High Court|
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
In this cr. appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 12/2010 is under challenge whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant Devendra Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 30 of the Arms Act whereas the two other accused appellants Hanuman Singh and Manvendra Singh convicted for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and following sentence was passed against them:
"Accused appellant Devendra Singh:
Under Section 302 -- IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI.
Under Section 30 of the Arms Act -- Six months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month RI.
Accused appellants Hanuman Singh and Manvendra Singh:
Under Section 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI"
As per facts of the case, report (Ex. P/26) was submitted by the complainant Vishwanath Pratap Singh before the SHO Police Station, Fuliyakallan at the place of occurrence on 1.45 pm in which it was alleged that on 18.6.2010 his brother Maniraj Singh and Kamlesh Sharma went to see their agricultural field, thereafter, complainant alongwith PW-2 Hansraj, PW-3 Anil and PW-8 Chhotu Lal also went to the agricultural field for handing over the land for cultivation on contract (Sijara). When they reached on spot, the accused appellant Devendra Singh, Hanuman Singh and Manvendra Singh were already cultivating their field by tractor. The accused appellant Hanuman Singh was driving tractor and two other accused appellants Devendra Singh and Manvendra Singh were sitting on the tractor. According to the allegation of the complainant, Devendra Singh was having double barrel gun and they gave threatening to Maniraj Singh "how you entered in the field, now you will not alive". While saying so, accused appellant Devendra Singh fired on Maniraj Sing, which hit right side of his chest and due to said gun shot injury Maniraj Singh fell down. The other person Kamlesh Sharma run away from the site, but accused appellants followed him and again Devendra Singh made fired upon Kamlesh Sharma and therefore, Kamlesh Sharma also fell down and died on spot. As per submission of complainant he is eye witness of the incident. Thereafter, all the accused persons run away from the place of occurrence.
Upon aforesaid report submitted by the complainant Vishwanath Pratap Singh, FIR No. 73/2010 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused appellant and investigation was commenced. The investigating officer after conducting thorough investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused appellants in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Bhilwara from where case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara for trial.
The learned trial court commenced the trial in Sessions Case No. 12/2010. In the trial after hearing arguments charge under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3/27 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused appellant Devendra Singh whereas charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the accused appellants Hanuman Singh and Manvendra Singh, but all the accused appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial.
In the trial, statements of 25 prosecution witnesses were recorded from the side of prosecution to prove the case and thereafter, the statements of all the three accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but they denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. In defence, no evidence was produced by them and finally after hearing arguments, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellants Devendra Singh for committing offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 30 of the Arms Act whereas other two accused appellants Hanuman Singh and Manvendra Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 20.11.2012.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution case is based upon testimony of four eye witnesses including PW-2 Hansraj, PW-3 Anil, PW-8 Chhotu Lal and the complainant PW-16 Vishwanath Pratap Singh, out of all the four witnesses, three witnesses namely PW-2 Hansraj, PW-3 Anil, PW-8 Chhotu Lal whose names are mentioned in the complaint by the complainant Vishwanath Pratap Singh turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case whereas the witness PW-16 Vishwanath Pratap Singh corroborated the allegation. The other witness PW-11 Brijraj Singh is hear say witness. The two other witness PW-21 Prahlad of recovery of tractor and site plan, turned hostile. PW-24 Ramjas witness of recovery memo of gun and site plan (Ex. P/34) also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, therefore, prosecution has not been proved the allegation of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial court disbelieved the evidence for prosecution for murder of Kamlesh Sharma while discussing the entire evidence and no...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL