Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhola Ram vs State on 19 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-62/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 62/1993
Bhola Ram
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary a/w Ms. Sampatti
Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
19/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 06.02.1993
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1,
Jodhpur in Case No.69/92 whereby the said Court has convicted
the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC & Section
3/27 of Arms Act as under :-
Under Section 307 IPC 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/-,
in default of payment of fine to further
undergo 3 months R.I.
Under Section 3/27 of 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-,
Arms Act in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo 3 Months' R.I.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:22:43 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-62/1993]
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident is
of 06.05.1988, when a dispute arose due to installing of a
transformer and the connection of the electricity having been
taken. When the connection was objected by the present
appellant, the present appellant, who was an Ex-army man, is
alleged to have shot upon the complainant party, which caused
injuries upon him.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that for
making out a case, the prosecution has failed at a critical juncture,
where neither the Radiologist nor the Doctor has been examined
for the injuries in question and thus, a suspicion has crept in to
the analogy drawn by the learned court below during trial.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the Arms Act
in vogue at the time of the incident (unamended) did not carry
any minimum sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
appellant did not have any criminal antecedents; the sentence of
the appellant has already been suspended by this Court on
24.02.1993 while taking into account the fact that there were
cross cases between the parties and in the cross case also, the
present complainant party has been convicted.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes but is unable to explain
the miserable failure on the part of the prosecution to bring the
Doctor, Radiologist or any medical expert, who could prove the
nature of the injuries or who could be cross-examined at the
instance of the defence regarding the offence in question.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2022 at 08:22:43 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-62/1993]
This Court taking into consideration the fact that the present
matter involves a dispute, which arose on 06.05.1988 and the
appeal itself is of the year 1993, finds that the learned trial court
has failed to reason it out as to in what circumstances the
doctor/radiologist/medical expert were not examined. The non-
examination of the Doctor/Radiologist in the present facts and
circumstances give way to grave suspicion and the benefit of
suspicion goes to the accused. The Arms Act does not have a
minimum sentence as in the given circumstances the conviction
cannot be sustained, as there is complete failure of prosecution to
carry the case beyond the reasonable doubt.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the
judgment dated 06.02.1993 passed by learned Additional District
& Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Case No.69/92 is quashed and
set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled
against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
All pending application also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
54-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
