PURAN CHAND GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant through Video Conferencing, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.02/2018 (14/2017) and NCV No.50/2017 whereby it convicted the present appellant besides one Shivram for offences under Section 302 / 120B , 201 / 120B IPC and 341 IPC .

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of over-implication of the accused-persons in the crime. Learned trial Court itself has acquitted as many as 6 accused persons out of total 8 accused. Convict-appellant has also been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that his name is not mentioned in the FIR Convict-appellant has also been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that his name is not mentioned in the FIR whereas complainant Devnarayan was his relative and well-known to him.It is alleged that one Katta was recovered at the instance of the appellant but no evidence of FSL or Armour has been produced by the prosecution to prove that so-called recovered Katta was used in the incident or whether it was fit for firing. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no credible evidence on record which may warrant conviction of the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant remained on bail during trial. He has remained in custody for more than one and a half years. No other criminal case has ever been registered against him. Hearing of the appeal may take much time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended till the disposal of the appeal.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.