DEVENDRA @ CHIKUDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No.946/2010 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Devendra @ Chikuda for quashing of order dated 26.11.2010 whereby he has been convicted and sentence for the offence under Secs.341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC; whereas appeal No.944/2011 has been preferred on behalf of the complainant Mukesh Kumar for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused Devendra. Since both the appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 26.11.2010, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment & order.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 26.9.2009, injured complainant-Mukesh Kumar was admitted in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur wherefrom he gave a parcha bayan that he is a driver by profession and he was driving from village Gudha to village Bamal was and the accused appellant was accompaying him. When all the passengers parted off, then appellant alleged to have asked the complainant to drive upto his residence. It was further alleged that when appellant was about to drop, then complainant asked for the commutation charges and the appellant inflicted injuries upon the complainant with knife and he fell unconscious. Thereafter certain articles were alleged to have been taken away by the appellant.

(3.) On the basis of said parcha bayan, FIR being 331/2009 was registered for offence under Secs.341,323,324 and 307 IPC at PS- Gudha. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jhunjhunu. The trial court framed charges against the appellant to the aforesaid offences, to which accused denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in its support and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above vide judgment dated 26.11.2010.