HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision application by Jogindersingh and four others is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 14th April, 1966 by which he maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under sections 457 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioners is that on the night of 19th april, 1964 at about 9 or 9. 30 p. m. , Dharamchand (P. W. 1) and his wife Smt. Kamla (P. W. 5) were sitting in the upper most story of the building situated in bapu Bazar, Udaipur whose construction work was being looked after by dharamchand on behalf of Madanlal resident of Nathdawara its owner and they gone upstairs after bolting the door of the staircase from inside. On the ground floor of this building there are two shops Nos. 103 and 104 which had been rented out to petitioner Joginder-singh for the last 4-5 years. It is said that at that time seven or eight persons including the petitioners climbed over the roof by means of a wooden staircase and came to the place where Dharamchand and Smt. Kamla were sitting and held out threats to kill Dharamchand and also relieved him of his wrist watch and a gold ring. The accused persons also by putting Dharamchand in fear, obtained his signatures on a blank paper having two stamps affixed on it. According to Dharamchand's statement recorded as supplementary information the above act was committed by the accused because a suit for eviction from the shop and criminal proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was pending against Jogindersingh. A written report Ex. P1 of the incident was made by Dharamchand on the next day at 3 p. m. at Police Station, Surajpol, udaipur. The report Ex. P1 did not mention the names of the accused persons nor did it mention the presence of Smt. Kamla (P. W. 5) at the place of the incident. As the report was vague to some extent, the Station House Officer recorded the statement of Dharamchand for eliciting further information and in that statement dharamchand mentioned the names of the petitioners and also described the presence of Smt. Kamla at the scene of occurrence. In that statement he also explained why the report was made after so much delay. The explanation in the portion marked A-B, is that the informant remained busy in taking bath, informing other persons and in arranging his shop, However, at the trial Dharamchand has disowned this explanation On this report, a case for offences under Sections 457 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police and after investigation the petitioners were prosecuted for the said offences in the court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Udaipur. Charges under sections 457 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioners.
(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined Dharamchand (P. W. 1), jaskaran brother of Dharamchand (P. W. 2), Roshanlal (P. W. 3), Rameshwarlal (P. W. 4), Smt. Kamla (P. W. 5), Shri D. D. Gupta, Civil and Additional Sessions judge, (P. W. 6) and Manoharlal, Station House Officer, (P. W. 7 ).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.