HAKAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was indicted in a criminal case registered at the Police Station Cristian Gan) Ajmer on 12.12.2001 for offence under Sections 341 and 384 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Jagdish submitted a written report at the police station mentioning therein that he was plying City Bus No RNW 407 and Mithalal was conductor on the bus. On the day of occurrence the appellant Hakarn met him at the Vaishali Nagar Bus-stand and demanded Rs 20.00 from him for liquor. On his refusal to meet his demand, he told that all the bus owners used to pay him money and that he will have to pay the amount. The complainant when left the place, appellant Hakam told him that if he does not pay Rs. 20.00 by now, then on return he will have to pay Rs. 50.00 but at that time the complainant and Mithu went from the place with their bus. It was mentioned that in the evening at about 6.00 P.M. when they returned to Vaishall Nagar Bus Stand and were going to the Dhaba of Durga, the appellant stopped them. It was alleged that at the point of knife he demanded Rs. 50.00 and also told that if money is not given to him he will cause injury by knife. When Mittu Lal refused to fulfil his demand, the accused pushed Mitthu Lal, a maruti car coming on the road hit him and the tyre of the car ran over the leg due to which the right leg of Mitthu Lal got fractured. it was mentioned that he was not able to see the full numbers of Maruti Car and was able to see only RJ-01-3791. Mitthu was taken to JLN Hospital and was admitted there. On the basis of this written report Ex.P.2, the police registered formal FIR Ex.P.3 and proceeded with the investigation. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested, the injured Mitthu Lal was medically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308 and 384 Penal Code in the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, who having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. From where the case was entrusted to the learned trial court for trial.

(2.) The learned trial court on the basis of the material available on is record and hearing the parties, framed charge against the appellant for offence under Sections 323, 384, 325 and 308 Penal Code to which the appellant denied and claimed trial.

(3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as witnesses and produced some documents. The accused was examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. wherein he denied the allegation of pushing the injured.