Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Farid Khan vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:40278) on 27 September, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:40278]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 961/2020
Farid Khan S/o Shri Mustak Khan, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Khan, R/o Indira Colony, Police Station Banswara, District
Banswara. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Banswara).
----Appellant
Versus
State, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment
Reserved on :- 12/09/2024
Pronounced on :- 27/09/2024
1. The sole appellant faced trial in Sessions Case No.76/2018
before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara and was
convicted by the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2020. On the
date of judgment itself, the following sentences were passed:-
Section 307 IPC - 10 years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default
of payment of fine further to
undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment.
Section 324 IPC - 2 years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default
of payment of fine further to
undergo 3 months rigorous
imprisonment
Section 4/25 Arms Act - 3 years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default
of payment of fine further to
undergo 1 months rigorous
imprisonment.
[2024:RJ-JD:40278] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-961/2020]
By the same judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the
charges under Sections 323 and 326 IPC.
2. The aforesaid trial arose out of FIR No.83/2018 registered
with Banswara Police Station by Mrs. Salma, wife of the appellant.
The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR is that the informant
was married with the appellant in the year 2005. She has two
children aged about 13 years and 10 years. For family dispute, the
informant had lodged a case against the appellant on 27.02.2018
in Mahila Police Station, Banswara. On the same day, a
compromise was entered into between the parties on undertaking
of the appellant that in future he would not repeat the same act.
On 28.02.2018, the appellant came to his house in the night. The
informant experiencing some imminent danger locked herself
inside the room. However, the appellant got the room opened on
the pretext that he wants his dress. When the informant opened
the door, appellant attacked with dagger causing injury at the
abdomen and the arm more than once. The neighbor Farzana
(PW-1) and others took her to the hospital for treatment.
3. PW-2 Salma has categorically supported the prosecution case
as disclosed in the FIR (Ex.P-1) and her statement before the
police under section 161 CrPC in material particular. Her statement
is corroborated by medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Rani Upadhyay
and medical report (Ex.4). According to PW-6, the doctor found a
cut injury with pointed ends at the mid of the abdomen resulting
in intestine coming out. Another cut injury was there near the
waist. Two other cuts were on the right arm. Injury Nos.1 and 2
was dangerous to life. The informant is corroborated by PW-1
Farzana and PW-3 Mohd. Shahid, who deposed that they heard
[2024:RJ-JD:40278] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-961/2020]
alarm and distressed call near the house of the informant and saw
her in injured condition, especially dagger injury at the abdomen
and blood coming out. They took the injured to the hospital. The
investigating officer PW-7 Chandan Singh has supported the
investigation and deposed that he found the prosecution case true
while submitting the charge-sheet.
4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant
took the court to the minute details of the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses, however, failed to substantiate that any
material contradiction is there to discard the whole prosecution
case.
5. On consideration of the material on record, this Court is of
the view that the conviction requires no interference. However,
considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, to
meet the ends of justice the sentence against the appellant is
being reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant
has remained in jail for more than six and half years; let the
appellant be set free at once on execution of a bond that in the
event of challenge of this judgment, he shall appear before the
appellate court and cooperate with the proceeding.
6. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this criminal
appeal stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
294-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
