SIKANDAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the following manner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner vide judgment dtd. 22/1/2003 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.216/2002 :-

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that complainant Hajara submitted a report (Ex.P/1) as the Police Station Jamsar to the effect that on 22/1/1999 in the evening at about 07.00 p.m., she and her daughter Salema were cooking food in the kitchen of their house. At that time, Sikandar, Haidar and 5-7 persons of the same village came with an intention to kill them. Sikandar and his brother Haidar entered the kitchen abusing, while the other persons, who were holding lathis and axes, stood surrounding the kitchen. The complainant was sitting in the kitchen. Haider kicked her 3-4 times and when her daughter Salema tried to rescue her, Haidar and Sikander also assaulted her with fists and kicks. They twisted her fingers. Sikandar made the complainant stand up by grabbing her hair and slapped her near the ear and also broke the gold chain worn by her. When she made a hue and cry, Ilahibux, Shaukat and other villagers came running, upon which the assailants ran away. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.22/1999 for the offences under Ss. 452, 523, 382, 354, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners for the offences under Ss. 452, 323 and 34 of the IPC.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Ss. 452 and 323/34 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statement under Sec. 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners for offences under Ss. 452 and 323/34 of the IPC vide judgment dtd. 22/1/2003. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court in the manner stated above vide judgment dtd. 20/7/2004. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.