D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1896/2007 and 190/2008. Case: Sattu and Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1896/2007 and 190/2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.S. Hasan and Meenu Verma, Counsel and For Respondents: Sudesh Saini, R.S. Raghav and V.S. Godara, Public Prosecutors |
| Judges | Mohammad Rafiq and Prakash Gupta, JJ. |
| Issue | Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 4; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 164, 173(8), 299, 437A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 201, 302, 34 |
| Judgement Date | October 05, 2015 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
-
Criminal Appeal No. 1896/2007 has been filed by accused-appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan challenging judgment and order dated 07.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 33/2004, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default, to further under go six months additional simple imprisonment.
-
Criminal Appeal No. 190/2008 has been registered on grant of leave by this court in D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 6/2008 filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging acquittal of accused-respondent Bada Yusuf @ Mohammad Yusuf @ Yusuf Kabadi, for offence under Sections 120B, 302 or 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC and accused-respondent Sattu @ Satya Narayan Meena for offence under Section 120B and 201 IPC.
-
During investigation in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 390/2001 registered at Police Station Nayapura, Kota, f our persons, namely, Pappu @ Gajanand @ Gadiya @ Langda, Chhota Yusuf @ Abdul Yusuf, Bada Yusuf @ Mohd. Yusuf @ Yusuf Kabadi, and Sattu @ Satya Narayan Meena, were arrayed as accused. However, after completing investigation, initially charge-sheet was filed only against accused Pappu, Chhota Yusuf and Abdul Hamid. But, investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was kept pending against co-accused, namely, Bada Yusuf @ Mohammad Yusuf, Sattu @ Satya Narayan, Prithvi Singh @ Pappu Bana and Bhupendra Singh Chudawat. Later on, the police filed challan on 23.02.2004 under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. against appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan and co-accused Bada Yusuf @ Mohammad Yusuf @ Yusuf Kabadi for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 120-B, 201 IPC, and dropped investigation against co-accused Prithvi Singh @ Pappu Bana and Bhupendra Singh Chudawat. When appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan was later arrested in connection with offence under NDPS Act on 02.06.2004, the police arrested appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan on 15.07.2004 in this case on production warrant from jail in the present case. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in support of the case and exhibited 23 documents. The defence, however, exhibited nine documents but did not produce any witness. Abdul Hamid stood discharged on 07.02.2002. Therefore, initially the trial was held against accused Pappu and Chhota Yusuf. By judgment dated 05.06.2004, Pappu and Chhota Yusuf were convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Since Pappu and Chhota Yusuf were aggrieved of said judgment, they filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 749/2004, which was decided by this court by judgment dated 08.12.2009 upholding their conviction and dismissing their appeal.
-
After trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota, by impugned judgment dated 07.07.2007, convicted accused Sattu @ Satya Narayan for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and acquitted Bada Yusuf of offences under Sections 120B, 302 or 302/34 and 201 IPC.
-
Facts of the case unfolding from the record are that on 28.07.2001 one Gurucharan Singh submitted a written report (Exhibit P-7) to Shri Dev Chand Mehar a, Sub Inspector (PW-10), who was Station House Officer, Nayapura, Kota, regarding incident, which took place on that date, leading to murder of his brother Amarjit Singh. It was stated in the report that on that date his brother Amarjit Singh, as usual, left the home at about 6.30-6.45 AM to reach Ummed Singh Stadium, Nayapura, Kota, for jogging. His brother was brought home on a scooter at 7.20 AM in severely injured condition by one Manoj Galav. He was soaked in blood. On enquiry, it was given out by Manoj Galav that he and his brother were jogging in Ummed Singh Stadium. When they reached the way near main road leading to stadium, they saw a boy aged about 20-22 years, wearing black pant and blue lining shirt, sitting near bridge over drainage, on its right side, and two boys aged 20-22 years, were sitting towards left side of the bridge over the drainage. Out of them, one had must ache and his height was 5' 8", and another boy wearing pant and shirt, was of wheatish colour and his height was 5' 6". He further stated that so soon he and Amarjit Singh reached near the bridge over drainage, boys of both the sides stood up and attacked Amarjit Singh with sharp edged weapon like 'gupti', due to which Amarjit Singh sustained injuries on his chest and stomach. When Manoj Galav took car e of Amarjit Singh, those three boys suddenly fled away towards Nayapura, Kota. Manoj Galav took lift from one scooter rider and brought Amarjit Singh to the house. Manoj Galav could recognize these boys and 2-3 other persons, standing near by the place of incidence, if they were brought before him. Thereafter, the informant, Manoj Galav and scooter rider, took Amarjit Singh to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, where doctors declared him brought dead.
-
Shri S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan, has argued that is a concocted case against accused-appellant and that he has been falsely framed. Neither the appellant was named in the FIR nor in the statements of so-called eye witnesses, namely, Manoj Galav (PW-4), Daljit Singh (PW-7) and Rajendra Singh (PW-9), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. There is no evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. Even in original charge-sheet that was filed against co-accused earlier, no evidence was there naming him as accused. Deepak Bhargava (PW-3), in his statement, has not disclosed any role of accused-appellant. In fact, Deepak Bhargava (PW-3), in his cross-examination, has stated that he did not make any additional or further investigation and filed challan on the basis of material collected by the previous Investigating Officer. He has stated that the mot or cycle of co-accused Bada Yusuf was used by the accused-appellant in the crime and, after the incident, Chhota Yusuf and Pappu Raibari @ Ghanshyam handed over their blood stained clothes to Bada Yusuf and cell phone, that was being used by Pappu Raibari at the time of incident, was of Bada Yusuf. Had accused-appellant Sattu @ Satya Narayan been present at the scene of occurrence, he would have also likewise handed over his blood stained clothes to Bada Yusuf.
-
Shri S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for accused-appellant, further argued that learned trial court has committed serious mistake in relying on statement of Manoj Galav (PW-4), Daljit Singh (PW-7) and Rajendra Singh (PW-9). These witnesses are highly interested witnesses and do not inspire confidence. Their conduct is highly unnatural. Their police statement has been recorded 3-4 days after the incident and that during this period, they did not telling or many one about the incidence. Learned trial court did not accept their version in so far as allegations against Bada Yusuf on the same evidence is concerned. Conduct of witnesses, namely, Daljit Singh (PW-7) and Rajendra Singh (PW-9) was highly unnatural and they were planted witnesses. These witnesses could be introduced later because al ready room was created for them in the FIR it self alleging that 2-3 persons standing near by the place of incident also witnessed the occurrence and could recognize the accused. And, witnesses, namely, Daljit Singh (PW-7) and Rajendra Singh (PW-9) have been planted as those two persons. The fact that they are bogus witnesses, is evident from their police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-7), which were recorded belatedly on 28/30.07.2001, that they made witnesses at the instance of father of deceased. These two witnesses, in their statements, have admitted that they did not inform the police earlier about the fact of their being eye witnesses of incident. They did not make any hue and cry on seeing...
To continue reading
Request your trial