LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-78

MOHD. RIZWAN Vs. STATE

Decided On July 29, 2019
Mohd. Rizwan Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No.01/2015 (NCV No.64/2015)

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-

(3.) Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. A specific plea was taken by the accused in defence that he had gone to the shop of the complainant for buying eggs. He was not having the full amount and thus, he returned home. The complainant Mohd. Iqbal and his son Munawwar Hussain came to his house and quarrelled with him. He was passing by the shop of the complainant when both father and son accosted him and beat him on his head by an acid bottle. He was suffering with a hole in his heart since birth and was not physically capable to quarrel. The accused appeared in the witness box as DW-1 wherein he proved his medical report (Ex.D/5). Dr. Adil Majid Belim (DW.2) proved the fact regarding the condition of hole in the heart with which the accused was afflicted. Dr. Narendra Vaishnav (DW.3) was examined to prove the injuries suffered by the accused in the selfsame incident. The injury No.1, located on the head, was caused by corrosive substance. Numerous other injuries were noticed on the body of the accused. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the trial court proceeded to admit the evidence of material prosecution witnesses viz. first informant Mohd. Iqbal (PW.1), Abdul Wahab (PW.4), Gayasudin (PW.5), Mohd. Arshad (PW.6) and Munawwar Hussain (PW.10) to be wholly reliable and corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Amit Srivastava, the medical jurist (PW.7) and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant, as above. Hence, this appeal.