MUSTAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 01.10.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.11/2012, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to the filed by one Aarif son of Aas Mohammad on 02.10.2010 at 6:00 in the morning that near Thekdawas Mod, a person was found dead near the road. That person was identified by one Amna wife of Mazid, who said that the deceased was husband of Bilang and she called up villagers. 10-15 person arrived at the site and one written report was given to SHO Police Station, Gopalgarh that the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons. On this report, the police registered FIR No.117/2010 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and the investigation agency filed charge sheet before the court below under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC against the accused persons. However, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against one accused Aarif. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Additional District Judge-I, Deeg, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), charges were framed against the accused persons Ali Sher, Mustaq and Ummed under Sections 120-B, 302, 302/34 and 201 IPC. As many as 24 witnesses were examined and 38 documents were exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case. In the meanwhile, supplementary charge sheet came to be filed against the accused Aarif under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and he was charged under Sections 302, 120-B, IPC. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court below concluded the trial and vide its judgment dated 01.10.2014 convicted the accused-appellants in the manner as stated above. Hence these appeals.

(3.) Ms. Gayatri Rathore and Shri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants have argued that the impugned judgment has been passed in a hasty manner without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence available on record thereby causing serious miscarriage of justice. The learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact that as per the evidence on record, no overt act has been attributed to accused-appellants and as such, there is no evidence for commission of the said offence by the appellant has come on record.