Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balbir Singh vs State on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 363/1993
Balbir Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
Ms. Kinjal Purohit for
Dr. RDSS Kharlia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
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.
Counsel for the appellant points out that the incident
happened on 25.10.1992 when complainant-Jogendra and his
brother deceased-Virendra Singh were sitting in their room and
Balbir Singh and Rulia Singh were bursting crackers in the lane,
due to which an altercation happened for not bursting the
crackers, then Balbir Singh gave 'lathi' blow on the head of
Virendra Singh resulting into his death.
Mr. Falgun Buch, counsel for appellant, submits that in the
totality of case the main allegation rests upon Balbir Singh.
Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to
the depositions made by PW-2 Ramesh Dutt Sharma, PW-4
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:02:53 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-363/1993]
Jogendra Singh, PW-5 Mahendra Singh, PW-7 Kala Singh, PW-11
Mahendra Singh, in which, they deposed that the injury upon
Virendra Singh has been caused by Balbir Singh and Gurdeep
Singh.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no FSL
Report in the matter and there were no independent witnesses.
Counsel for the respondent, however, points out that the
frontal parietal injury caused death and Balbir Singh being main
aggressor has been attributed with blow on head, as the 'lathi'
was recovered from him.
Learned PP and private counsel submits that from the
statement of doctor as well as the consistency in the statement,
name of Balbir Singh is their in the array of accused as is
attributed with causing injury at the frontal parietal bone, which
caused the death.
Learned PP and the private counsel points out that the
appellant is a habitual offender and has the following
antecedents:-
Ø- fu.kZ;
pkyku is"k
eq-u- fnukad /kkjk iqfyl Fkkuk pkyku U;k;ky;
la- fnukad
fnukad
54 jkt- vkcdkjh fgUnqeydksV & & ltk
1 [email protected]
vf/kfu;e 04-08-1995
302] 323] 147] fgUnqeydksV [email protected] 07-12-1992 ltk
2 [email protected]
148] 149 Hkknl 1992
15] [email protected] thvkjihHkfV.Mk & & &
3 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV
15] [email protected] lnj QkftYdk & 15-11-2002 &
4 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV
15] [email protected] ljoj [kqbZ;k & 19-04-2010 &
5 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV
15] [email protected] lnj QkftYdk & 21-12-12 &
6 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV
15] [email protected] lnj QkftYdk 26-02-2011 18-04-2011 ltk
7 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV 22-08-2012
15] [email protected] lnj QkftYdk & 13-05-2015 cjh
8 [email protected]
,uMhih,l ,DV 01-09-2016
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:02:53 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-363/1993]
Counsel for the private respondent and learned PP submits
that Gurdeep Singh and Balbir Singh was jointly reflected but
specific attribution of parietal bone injury is upon the present
appellant.
This Court while keeping into consideration criminal
antecedents of the present appellant finds that the learned trial
court has passed a detailed and descriptive judgment whereby
each and every evidence has been dealt with and a conclusion has
been arrived at with the help of recovery of 'lathi' as well as
witnesses, particularly, the injury on frontal parietal on head
justifies the order of the trial court. The appeal, thus, is
dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
145-nirmala/Sanjay-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
