Babushaya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Babushaya vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 09, 1988

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758461

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758461
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra, J.
Decided On: Dec 09, 1988
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 270 of 1988
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 392/511--Attempt to snatch ear-ring--Abrasions over left ear-ring hole and left leg--Report lodged immediately--Statements of prosecution witnesses not disbelievable--Accused not giving particulars about stone pieces--Held, accused was rightly found guilty under Section 392/511.;It is well prove...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Babushaya

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1989WLN(UC)8

Excerpt

.....accused has not given the necessary particulars about the transaction of the stone pieces. he has not even disclosed the name of the person, time, quantity and amount of the stone pieces supplied. the learned lower courts have rightly held the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 392 read with section 511, ipc.;revision partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 5. it is well proved from the prosecution evidence that on october 24, 1980, at about 11 a. on the contrary, it is well proved from the over-whelming prosecution evidence that it was the accused-petitioner who did the said acts......merta, dated sept. 5, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 392 read with section 511, ipc and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rs. 500/-. the facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.2. on october 24, 1980, mst. kamla (p.w 6) was working in the field situated in village thawla (nagaur) at about 11 a.m. the accused petitioner came there to snatch her earing and kara , he ould not do so as she raised hue and cry. report ex.p/1 was lodged by her uncle champa lal (p w 1) in the police station, thawla, the same day. thereupon, a case was registered under section 392 read with section 511, ipc. after usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-petitioner. the prosecution examined eight witnesses and tendered and proved five documents. in his statement recorded under section 313, cr.p.c. the accused-petitioner disclosed that he went in the said field to demand the price of the stone pieces supplied by him, he was beaten there and, therefore, a false case had got been made out against him. he examined dr. b.k. gupta (dw 1) and dr. vijay sing (dw 2) in his defence. after bearing the parties, the special judicial magistrate, nagaur convicted and sentenced the accused as paid above. the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned sessions judge, as said above.3. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that all the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that the accused-petitioner was not known to item prior to the alleged occurrence and they were not asked to identify him in any identification parade. he further contended that champa lal (pw 1), moti (pw 3) and narain (pw 5) have deposed that they did not chase the accused who attempted to snatch the ear-ring and kara. he lastly contended that m st. kamla (pw 6) did not say in her.....

Full Judgment

Milap Chandra, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (here in after referred to as 'the Code'), against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, dated Sept. 5, 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 511, IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.

2. On October 24, 1980, Mst. Kamla (P.W 6) was working in the field Situated in village Thawla (Nagaur) at about 11 a.m. the accused petitioner came there to snatch her earing and kara , he ould not do so as she raised hue and cry. Report Ex.p/1 was lodged by her uncle Champa Lal (p w 1) in the police Station, Thawla, the same day. Thereupon, a case was registered under Section 392 read with Section 511, IPC. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-petitioner. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and tendered and proved five documents. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner disclosed that he went in the said field to demand the price of the stone pieces supplied by him, he was beaten there and, therefore, a false case had got been made out against him. He examined Dr. B.K. Gupta (DW 1) and Dr. Vijay Sing (DW 2) in his defence. After bearing the parties, the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur convicted and sentenced the accused as paid above. The accused-petitioner preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, as said above.

3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that all the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that the accused-petitioner was not known to item prior to the alleged occurrence and they were not asked to identify him in any identification parade. He further contended that Champa Lal (PW 1), Moti (PW 3) and Narain (PW 5) have deposed that they did not chase the accused who attempted to snatch the ear-ring and Kara. He lastly contended that M st. Kamla (PW 6) did not say in her statement on oath that the accused-petitioner attempted to snatch her ear-ring and Kara.

4. The learned Public Prosecution duly supported the judgments under revision.

5. It is well proved from the prosecution evidence that on October 24, 1980, at about 11 a.m., Mst. Kamla (PW 6) was working in the field situated in village Thawla and her ear-ring and Kara were attempted to be snatched away by a person. As a result thereof, she received abrasions over the lower border of her left ear-ring hole and lateral molleous of left leg. Report Ex. P/1 was immediately lodged about it.

6. The only question for consideration in this revision is whether it was the accused who did the said act. It is admitted by the accused-petitioner that he went there and he was beaten by a few persons. His defence is that he went there to demand the price of the stone pieces which he supplied. This defence put forward by the accused-petitioner was an after thought. In the lengthy bail application, Paper No. B/1/6 7, and in another application moved under Section 311 of the Code, Paper No. B/33-35, there is no such indication in them. On the contrary, it is well proved from the over-whelming prosecution evidence that it was the accused-petitioner who did the said acts. He was caught red-handed and was produced before the Police along with the report Ex. P/1. This fact is duly mentioned in it. The fact that he was not put to any identification parade was of no consequence as he was caught red-handed and produced before the Police. Champa Lal (PW 1), Hajari (PW 2), Moti (PW 3), Ghamanda Ram (PW 4) and Narain (PW 5) have deposed that on hearing the hue and cry of Kamla (PW 6), they went there, saw the accused running away and he was caught red-handed. Ram Singh (PW 8) has also deposed that he also went in the field where Kamla (PW 6) was working and saw 3-4 Rnigors' have caught-hold a person. Kamla (PW 6) has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused-petitioner was the person who attempted to remove her Kariya and ear-ring. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The accused has not given the necessary particulars about the transaction of the stone pieces. He has not even disclosed the name of the person, time, quantity and amount of the stone pieces supplied The learned lower courts have rightly held the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 511, IPC. Now the question is about the quantum of sentence. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the accused-petitioner be released of the sentence already undergone. He has been in judicial custody for about fifteen days during the investigation and he is in custody since September 5, 1988. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year cannot be said to be excessive. It is how ever, not necessary to impose the fine of Rs. 500/-.

7. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 511, IPC, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year are maintained. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- is set aside.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1988 Same Parties Babushaya vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Milap Chandra, J.

Criminal