Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lal Mohammed And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:11130) on 25 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:11130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 260/1992
1. Lal Mohammed S/o Shri Ibrahim Khan, Aged 43 years, B/c
Musalman, R/o Salumbar, District Udaipur.
2. Munawar Khan S/o Shri Akbar Khan, Aged 33 years, B/c
Musalman, R/o Kherwara, District Udaipur.
3. Sadik Khan S/o Samir Khan, Aged 31 years, B/c Musalman,
R/o Kherwara, District Udaipur.
4. Nathu Singh S/o Shri Nahar Singh, Aged 40 years, B/c Rajput,
R/o Punari, District Dungarpur.
5. Kishore S/o Shri Walaji, Aged 35 years, B/c Dangi, R/o
Asariwadi, District Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
25/02/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
21.07.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Udaipur, in Session Case No.70/1985 by which the learned Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 395 IPC 3 years RI Rs.100/- & in default of payment,
undergo 10 days Addl. SI
Sec. 323 IPC 1 month SI --
Sec. 409 IPC 3 years RI Rs.100/- & in default of payment,
only accused Lal undergo 10 days Addl. SI
Mohammed
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:11130] (2 of 5) [CRLA-260/1992]
Brief facts of the case are that the on 04.02.1984, Constable
Laxmilal presented a written report, given by the complainant
Chandra Prakash Agarwal, before the SP, Udaipur. It was alleged in
the report that on 02.02.1984, the complainant along with driver
and two other persons were going towards Ambasa by a truck
bearing No.RRY-2539. On the way, accused-appellants stopped the
said truck and assaulted the occupants of the truck and also
snatched Rs.4,725/- from the complainant. On the said report,
Police registered a case against the appellants for offence under
Sections 395, 342, 323 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 395,
323, 409 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed
against the appellants, who denied the same and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 22 witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the appellants under
section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, three witnesses
were examined by the appellants.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.07.1992 convicted the appellant
No.1 Lal Mohammed for offence under Sections 395, 323, 409 IPC
and rest of the appellants under Sections 395, 323 IPC and
sentenced them as mentioned above.
The criminal appeal qua appellants No.1 Lal Mohammed,
No.3 Sadik Khan & No.5 Kishore has already been dismissed as
abated by this Court as they had expired.
So far as appellants No.2 & 4 are concerned, counsel submits
that the occurrence was taken place on 02.02.1984 and the FIR
[2025:RJ-JD:11130] (3 of 5) [CRLA-260/1992]
was lodged after three days of the incident i.e. on 05.02.1984.
Counsel submits that according to Ex-8 & Ex-7, Rs.1,390 was
recovered from Nathu Singh, Head Constable and Rs.2,950/- was
recovered from Lal Mohammed on 03.02.1984, whereas FIR in
this case was lodged on 05.02.1984. Counsel submits that these
two documents show that the before lodging the FIR, recovery
was made and in these documents, it was mentioned that both the
accused did not sign these documents and the same were
prepared by the Dy.SP. Counsel further submits that the arrest of
accused-appellant No.2 Munawar Khan was shown on 27.03.1984
and accused-appellant No.4 Nathu Singh was shown on
02.04.1984 and no identification parade was held in this case.
Counsel submits that initially, the prosecution came up with a
story of four persons later on another accused Kishore was
introduced and challan was filed against accused persons. Counsel
further submits that according to the statement of PW-11
Umardaraj Khan and PW-16 Gomaram, the occurrence was not at
all taken place and thus, no offence under Section 395 IPC is
made out against the appellants. Therefore, it is prayed that from
the evidence available on record, no offence under Sections 323,
395 is made out against the appellants and therefore, they may
be acquitted from the said offences.
On the other hand, the learned AAG opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The
learned AAG submitted that Police officials are involved in this
robbery case and therefore, no lenient view should be taken
against the appellant.
[2025:RJ-JD:11130] (4 of 5) [CRLA-260/1992]
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellants.
In this case two recovery memo (fard) were prepared by the
Police i.e. Ex-8 & Ex-7. According to these documents, Dy.SP on
receiving the information about robbery, he asked the persons
including the Police official Nathu Singh, Foot Constable (appellant
No.4) and Lal Mohammed, driver (appellant No.1). Upon which,
the appellant No.4 immediately Rs.1390/- and appellant No.1
Rs.2950/- handed over to Dy.S.P. On recovery of the said amount,
immediately these two documents were prepared on 03.02.1984.
Later on, these two accused persons were arrested by the Police
and as many as five persons were involved in this case. Thus,
from the evidence available on record, offences under Sections
395, 323 & 409 IPC are proved against the appellants. Thus, the
learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants
from the aforesaid offences.
However, considering the facts that the occurrence has taken
place in the year 1984 and the accused-appellants No.2 & 4 has
remained in jail for about ten days and they also suffered the
mental agony and trauma of protracted trial and presently they
are more than 70 years of age, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
323, 395 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the
accused-appellants No.2 & 4.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining conviction of the appellants No.2 & 4 for offence
under Sections 323, 395 IPC, the sentence awarded to them for
[2025:RJ-JD:11130] (5 of 5) [CRLA-260/1992]
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount imposed by the trial court is also
waived. The appellants No.2 & 4 are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
155-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
