SHIBBARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 16/12/2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, Rajasthan, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offences under Ss. 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC ") and have been sentenced as under:-

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 31/10/2010, complainant - Rajendra (PW-6) filed a written report (Exhibit-P36) at Sadar Police Station, Alwar. On the said report, police registered FIR No.476/2010 (Exhibit-P62) on the same day. The police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present accused appellants for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 326, 307 and 302 of IPC. The case was committed for the trial and the charges were framed against the accused appellants. The appellants denied all the charges and sought trial. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 86 documents. Explanations of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C. ") wherein they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, 6 documents were got exhibited. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, has convicted the accused appellants for the offences as stated herein-above, aggrieved by which, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel appearing for the accused appellants that in the initial report, which was lodged, 16 persons were named as assailants, however, the police submitted the charge-sheet only against 7 persons, which goes to show that there was over implication. It is also contended that the complainant - Rajendra (PW-6) was not an eye-witness, as he was not injured and it appears that some legal advise was sought before drafting the complaint. It is further contended that Babu Lal (PW-13), who is said to be an eyewitness, is a planted witness. He has also not sustained any injury. It is argued that none of the accused have been charged for the offence under the Arms Act and it is not established that as to who caused the death of deceased Kanhaiya. It is also argued that all the eye-witnesses have stated that Shibba is the person, who fired at the deceased. In that case, except Shibba, other appellants should not have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302/149 of IPC.