JUG RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 12. 11. 81, wherein, he convicted the accused Iqbalsingh for the offence under Sec. 326, IPC and sentenced him two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 month's R. I. He convicted the accused Chhogaram & Jugraj Singh for the offence under Sec. 326 read with Sec. 34, IPC and sentenced each of them one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 150/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R. I.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that one Harneksingh lodged a first information report at the police station, Muklawa on 18. 4. 70 at 6. 45 a. m. stating, inter alia, that on 17. 4. 70 at about 9 p. m. when he was in his dhani, at that time, accused Chhogaram came there and called him to come out. He came out of his dhani and saw that the accused Jugrajsingh, Jeetsingh and Iqbalsingh were sitting at a distance of 1 Kilia from his dhani. When he came out, Chhogaram and Jugrajsingh caught hold of him and Iqbalsingh fired a gun shot at him, which hit his leg and thereupon, all the four accused-persons ran away. He also alleged in the report that Jugrajsingh and Chhogaram were also armed with their guns and at that time, his wife Gulab Kaur and his son Jagirsingh also came there and just after this occurrence, his brother Kapoorsingh and Gurnamsingh also came there. A case was registered under Sec. 307, IPC against all the four accused-persons. The police undertook the investigation of this case and after investigation, the police came to a conclusion that the occurrence has not been happened as stated by the informant and, therefore, a final report was submitted in the court.

(3.) MR. M. K. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the facts are not in dispute that the police has given a final report on the ground that no case is made out against the accused-petitioners. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-petitioners. The complainant came up in appeal before this Court against the order of acquittal. The matter was restored back to him to record the statements of the accused-petitioners under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. After remand, the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the accused petitioners. But nothing additional material was brought on record. The accused-petitioners denied to have committed any offence whatsoever. Inspite of that, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, which is contrary to the facts brought on record. Nothing more was added after the remand rather the statements of the accused-petitioners were even in their favour. Therefore, there is no justification for conviction of the accused-petitioner.