STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHAMMED HANEEF AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order dated 6.2.2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/04 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence punishable under sections 148, 307/149 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26.4.2004 all the accused respondents collectively came with deadly and sharp weapons like Ustra, Lathies, Sword etc. with common intention they beat the complainant and his nephew Shami Ahmed. The complainant and his newphew Shami Ahmed received serious injuries by Sword and stones. Upon the parcha bayan of the complainant the police registered an FIR No. 52/2004 at Police Station Dargah Ajmer for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 341, 336 and 323 IPC. After investigation the police filed charge sheet for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 407, 341, 323, 325 and 326 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial court framed the charge under sections 148 and 307/149 IPC against the accused respondents. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 witnesses and the statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After hearing both the sides the trial court acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 148, 307/149 IPC and convicted them for the offence under section 323 IPC and all of them were given the benefit of section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act by admonishing the guilt by the judgment dated 6.2.2006.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court by which the accused respondents were acquitted is patently illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. The trial court has committed serious error of law while not appreciating the evidence of the prosecution in the right perspective. The witnesses have stated that accused respondents have committed an offence and the same is also proved by the prosecution evidence. The trial court has erred in not considering the statement of injured Abdul Sattar that all the accused respondents collectively came with deadly and sharp weapons like Ustra, Talwar, lathi etc. with a common intention and gave beating to him and his nephew and due to that they got serious injuries on their bodies. The trial court has also not considered the statement of PW.11 Dr. Balram Bachchani by which he stated that the injuries on the bodies of Abdul Sattar and Shameed were serious and these injuries were due to the sharp and deadly weapons and they were serious in nature. According to him the judgment of the trial be set aside and the accused respondents deserve conviction and order of acquittal deserves to be set aside.