Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sugan Khan @ Shaukat Khan vs State on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 700/2002
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sugan Khan @ Shokat Khan S/o Farid Khan,
2. Ayub Khan S/o Hasam Khan,
3. Seth Khan @ Rahamat Khan S/o Fakir Khan
All B/c Kayamkhani, R/o fagali, PS Roll, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 839/2001
1. Ayub Khan S/o Hasam Khan,
2. Seth Khan @ Rehmat Khan S/o Fakir Khan,
Both B/c Kayamkhani, R/o Village Phagli, District Nagaur.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer.)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 405/2002
Sugan Khan @ Shaukat Khan S/o Farid Khan, B/c Kayamkhani,
R/o Village Fagli, Tehsil & District Nagaur.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Madan Lal &
Dr. Shanti Choudhary for accused
persons
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
Judgment
Order reserved on 09/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 11/09/2025
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J)
All the aforesaid criminal appeals have arisen out of the
common judgment dated 16.10.2001, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, in Sessions Case
No.175/2001 (40/1999) by which the learned Trial Court acquitted
the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34
IPC, however, convicted them for offence under Sections 341,
323, 324/34, 326/34 IPC and sentenced as under:
S.No. Offence U/S Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC 1 month SI - -
2. 323 IPC 1 month SI - -
3. 324/34 IPC 2 years SI Rs.100/- 7 days SI
4. 326/34 IPC 5 years SI Rs.200/- 15 days SI
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Since all the matters are arising out of the same judgment
and order, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this
common order.
Criminal Appeal No.700/2002 has been filed by the State
against the acquittal of the present accused persons from offence
under Section 302/34 IPC. Whereas, Cr. Appeal Nos.839/2001 &
No.405/2002 have been preferred by the present accused persons
against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 18.05.1999 at about 10:15 AM, complainant- Mushtaq
(PW-13) gave a typed report to SHO, Police Station- Rol at
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
Government Hospital, Nagaur to the effect that on 18.05.1999 at
about 5:00 AM, his brother- Mumtaz was proceeding toward
Luharpura, Nagaur, from the village of Phagli for daily work. While
passing through a curve near Gawai Nadi (pond) in Phagli Village,
Mumtaz was confronted by the accused persons, namely Ilukhan,
Hasukhan, Ayub Khan, Sethu Khan, and Sugan Khan, who were
concealed at that location. The accused emerged from their hiding
place and attacked Mumtaz with swords, barchis, and lathis. As a
result, Mumtaz sustained severe injuries across multiple parts of
his body. Hearing the commotion, the complainant and one
Bhanwaroo Khan arrived at the scene and intervened to rescue
Mumtaz. The accused individuals then fled the scene. Mumtaz was
subsequently taken to the Government Hospital in Nagaur for
medical treatment.
Based on the aforementioned report, the police registered
FIR No. 26/1999 against the accused for offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 341, 323, and 307 of the IPC, and initiated an
investigation. During the course of treatment, Mumtaz succumbed
to his injuries. Consequently, the police added the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the
police filed a challan only against three of the accused persons.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 341, 323,
324/34, 326/34, 302/34 IPC to present accused persons. They
denied the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 23 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in
support of its case.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
The present accused persons were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and two
documents were exhibited.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both
the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the
documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide
judgment dated 16.10.2001 acquitted the present accused
persons from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however,
convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections
341, 323, 324/34 & 326/34 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, the State is
challenging the acquittal of the present accused persons for
offence under Section 302/34 IPC and present accused persons
are challenging their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the present
accused persons assaulted the deceased- Mumtaz, using a deadly
weapon, resulting in him sustaining as many as fifteen injuries
across various parts of his body. Some of these injuries were of
grievous in nature. It is further submitted that these grievous
injuries led to septicemia and toxemia, which ultimately caused
the death of Mumtaz due to meningitis, approximately ten days
after the incident. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor argues that the
learned trial court erred in acquitting the present accused persons
of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It is emphasized that
substantial evidence exists against the present accused persons
demonstrating their involvement in the commission of the offence.
The prosecution has successfully established the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt through the
presentation of cogent documentary and oral evidence. In light of
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
the foregoing, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the State be
allowed and that the present accused persons be convicted for the
offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
Per contra, regarding the acquittal of the present accused
persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC, counsel submits
that initially, in the FIR and in the statements of the eye-
witnesses, five accused individuals were named. However, after
investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against only
three of these accused persons. Both the complainant- Mushtaq
(PW-13), and Bhanwaroo Khan (PW-14) are eye-witnesses in the
case, and they explicitly stated in their depositions that all five
accused persons inflicted injuries upon the deceased- Mumtaz.
Nonetheless, they did not specify which particular accused caused
specific injuries to Mumtaz on particular parts of his body. It is
further argued that the cause of death of the deceased was
meningitis resulting from septicemia and toxemia, which
developed from injury No. 5 sustained by Mumtaz. The deceased
expired ten days after the incident due to negligence in his
medical treatment. Additionally, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-21)
specifically testified that septicemia and toxemia occurred as a
consequence of septic injury No. 5, ultimately leading to Mumtaz's
death from meningitis. The counsel contends that the septicemia
and toxemia arose due to negligence in the medical treatment
provided to Mumtaz. Therefore, the learned trial court has not
erred in acquitting the present accused persons from the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC.
So far as the conviction of the present accused persons for
offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, and 326/34 IPC is
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
concerned, counsel submits that the incident occurred in 1999 and
the maximum sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence
under Section 326/34 IPC is imprisonment for five years. As of
now, the present accused persons have already served
approximately three years of their sentence. Hence, except for the
offence under Section 326/34 IPC, the present accused persons
have already undergone the sentence imposed for the remaining
offences. It is therefore prayed that the period of sentence already
served by the present accused persons for the offence under
Section 326/34 IPC be taken into account, and that the remaining
sentence be reduced accordingly.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well
as record of the case.
Initially, the complainant- Mushtaq lodged the First
Information Report against five accused persons including the
appellants mentioning that they caused injuries to the deceased
Mumtaz by deadly weapon viz sowrd, barchi and lathies. The
Police after investigation, filed charge-sheet only against three
accused-appellants and two accused were exonerated by the
Police.
During the trial, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-21) has
specifically deposed that injury No. 5 was responsible for the
death of the deceased- Mumtaz. However, there is no evidence
indicating that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding
resulting from this injury. Furthermore, the immediate death of
the deceased is not establish, as he succumbed ten days after the
incident, following the medical treatment. The death was
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
attributed to septicemia and toxemia occurred. The principle of
criminal jurisprudence requires that in order to convict an accused
for murder, the prosecution must prove that the act of the accused
was the direct and proximate cause of death. Where an
intervening cause such as infection, delayed treatment, or medical
complications leads to death, the liability for murder cannot be
sustained. Thus, on meticulous examination of the evidence of the
witnesses as well as documentary evidence including the injury
report as well as postmortem report, we are of the opinion that
the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the present accused
persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Nevertheless,
from the overall discussion and analysis of the evidence, it clearly
emerges that the accused persons did assault deceased- Mumtaz
and inflicted grievous injuries upon him. Therefore, in the opinion
of this Court the learned trial court has rightly convicted the
present accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323,
324/34 and 326/34 IPC.
Additionally, this Court has considered that the present
accused persons have so far undergone a sentence of about three
years and the maximum sentence awarded by the trial court to
the present accused persons is of five years SI for the offence
under Section 326/34 IPC. Thus, they have already served the
sentence awarded for the offences under Sections 341, 323,
324/34 IPC.
However, considering the facts that the incident is related to
the year 1999 and the present accused persons have so far
undergone a sentence of about three years, we think it proper to
reduce the sentence of the present accused persons for the
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
offence under Section 326/34 IPC to the period already undergone
by them.
Thus, while maintaining conviction of the present accused
persons for offence under Section 326/34 IPC, their sentence for
the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone by them. The fine amount, if not deposited, is hereby
waived. The present accused persons are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal No.700/2002 preferred by
the State is hereby dismissed having no substance.
The Criminal Appeal Nos.839/2001 & No.405/2002 preferred
by the present accused persons are partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
77 to 79-MS/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
