Jabid @ Gholu vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10309 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7/2020

Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed, Aged About 28 Years, Indira
Colony, Nagaur, P.s. Kotawali, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.). (At
Present Lodged At Dist. Jail Ajmer).
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Naman Mohnot, through VC
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                 Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 08/07/2021

Judgment reserved on :            01.07.2021

BY THE COURT :

The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has

been preferred by the appellant Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed

being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur in Sessions Case

No.115/2018, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as

under :-

Offence      for Substantive                Fine and default sentence
which            sentence
convicted
Section 452 IPC Three     years' Fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
                simple           default of payment of fine,
                imprisonment     additional             simple
                                 imprisonment of 15 days
Section 397 IPC Seven     years' Fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
                simple           default of payment of fine,
                imprisonment     additional            simple
                                 imprisonment of one month

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2 of 6) [CRLAS-7/2020]

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

appeal are noted hereinbelow.

Pannaram (P.W.3), the first informant, lodged a written

report (Ex.P/4) at the Police Station Sadar, Nagaur on 03.06.2018

alleging inter alia that on that day, he had gone for labour work.

At around 1.30-1.40 p.m., an unknown man about 5-5½ feet

height wearing a black coloured t-shirt and a brown pant came

around to his house on a CD Delux motorcycle and knocked on the

door. At that time, the informant's wife Jashoda and their son

Rakesh were sleeping. The informant's wife opened the door and

the main requested some water to drink and therefore, responding

to the man's request, she went inside to get the same. As soon as

she turned to go in, the unknown man rushed into the house,

pushed the lady down on the ground and snatched her Bor,

Tiddipalka and earrings. He was holding a knife and was

continuously threatening her in a sinister tone that if she shouted,

she would be killed. The assailant after snatching all her

ornaments, made an escape on the motorcycle. The informant's

wife rushed to the neighbours and told them of her plight. They

then called the informant on mobile and apprised him of the

incident. On the basis of this report, FIR No.89/2018 (Ex.P/5)

came to be registered against the appellant for the offences under

Sections 379 and 382 IPC.

The appellant was apprehended on 06.07.2018 vide

arrest memo Ex.P/7 and was kept Baparda. He gave voluntary

information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/12) to the

Investigating Officer. Acting in furtherance thereof, a Tiddipalka

(Kollar) and a Bor made of gold-like metal were recovered vide

recovery memo Ex.P/9. The accused himself was subjected to

(3 of 6) [CRLAS-7/2020]

test identification at the hands of the complainant's wife Smt.

Jasoda (P.W.1). She correctly identified him from amongst other

persons put up for identification.

After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be

filed against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections

454, 382 and 398 IPC. As the offence under Section 398 IPC is

exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed

to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur. Charges

were framed against the appellant for the above offence. He

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in

support of its case. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC

and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against

him in the prosecution evidence, the appellant denied the same

and claimed to be innocent, but did not lead any evidence in

defence.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel

for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial

court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above.

Hence this appeal.

Mr. Naman Mohnot, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the conviction of

the appellant as recorded by the trial court is absolutely

unjustified. The identification of the appellant by the complainant

is defective and unreliable. The recoveries of the ornaments are

fabricated. On these submissions, Mr. Mohnot sought acceptance

of the appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

(4 of 6) [CRLAS-7/2020]

the appellant's counsel and contended that the victim Smt.

Jashoda (P.W.1) correctly identified the appellant as the assailant

in the test identification parade as well as during her sworn

testimony. The ornaments, which were looted by the appellant

from the victim after threatening with a knife, were recovered at

the instance of the appellant in furtherance of the voluntary

information (Ex.P/12) provided by him to the Investigating Officer

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. These ornaments were also

correctly identified by the victim in the test identification

proceedings as well as in the sworn testimony before the court.

He, thus, urges that the prosecution has proved its case as

against the appellant by leading unimpeachable evidence and

hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. On

these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of

the appeal.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar, perused the impugned judgment

and have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on

record.

The written report (Ex.P/4) came to be submitted by

the complainant Pannaram after the incident with clear allegations

that an unknown assailant came around to his house, knocked the

door and while informant's wife was acting with kindness and was

bringin him water, the assailant took out a knife, threatened the

lady, pushed her to the ground and robbed her ornaments. The

principal witnesses of the prosecution are Jashoda (P.W.1), Rakesh

(P.W.2), Pannaram (P.W.3) and Banshilal (P.W.9).

On a perusal of the evidence of Jashoda (P.W.1), it

becomes clear that she affirmatively identified the accused

(5 of 6) [CRLAS-7/2020]

appellant as being the assailant, who knocked the door of her

house on the fateful day and asked for water. When the lady was

trying to bring water for the assailant, he took out a knife and

under threat thereof, the Tiddipalka (Kollar) and the Bor of the

appellant were forcibly looted from her. The lady correctly

identified her ornaments, which had been recovered at the

instance of the accused during the course of investigation. The

ornaments were opened in the court and the lady correctly

identified them to be hers. She also identified the accused

appellant as being the assailant. As the appellant was not known

to the victim, she was subjected to test identification and the lady

correctly identfied the accused vide identification proceedings

noted in the memo Ex.P/1. A perusal of the entire statement

including extensive cross-examination conducted from the victim

lady, I am of the firm view that she has given clinching evidence

regarding the incident or robbery under threat of knife against the

appellant. She also correctly identified the appellant as the

offender. The looted ornaments were correctly identified by the

lady in her testimony. Manifestly, the appellant was not known to

the lady from before and thus, she had no reason to give false

evidence against him. Thus, the testimony of the lady has to be

considered as unimpeachable and worthy of reliance.

The child witness Rakesh (P.W.2), aged 16 years, also

corroborated the testimony of the Jashoda (P.W.1) to the hilt and

could not be shaken in cross-examination.

Pannaram (P.W.3) proved the First Information Report

and other documents prepared during investigation. Since he was

not an eye-witness, his testimony is not of much relevance.

(6 of 6) [CRLAS-7/2020]

Murarilal Sharma (P.W.4), the Executive Magistrate,

proved the proceedings pertaining to the identification of the

accused (Ex.P/1) and the looted property (Ex.P/2). The witness

could not be shaken in cross-examination.

Banshilal (P.W.9) was posted as ASI at the Police

Station Sadar, Nagaur on the date of the incident. He proved the

relevant steps of investigation to the hilt. Nothing significant

could be extracted in the cross-examination conducted from the

FSL.

Witnesses Shriram (P.W.7) and Raju Goran (P.W.8) were

associated in the recovery proceedings and they gave convincing

evidence to support the process of recovery.

In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this court

is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved its case as

against the appellant by unimpeachable, trustworthy and credible

evidence. The impugned judgment was arrived at after apropos

analysis and discussion of the evidence available on record and

the same does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal

warranting interference therein. Accordingly, the impugned

judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.115/2018

against the appellant Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed is affirmed.

The appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of

merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

10-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)