Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- 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 -.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

shashi kant sharma, j.1. instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants satya narayan @ bada, smt. motiya bai and smt. santosh bai against the judgment dated 5th july, 2002 passed by addl. sessions judge (fast track) no. 1, bundi whereby accused appellant satya narayan @ bada was convicted for the offence under section 302 ipc and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' si and accused appellants smt. motiya bai and smt. santosh bai were convicted for the offence under section 302/34 ipc and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month ri.2. brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:3. according.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Shashi Kant Sharma, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758128',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
			'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758128',
		(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Satya Narayan Bada and ors Vs State of Rajasthan - Citation 758128 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758128',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313',
		'appealno' => 'D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Manindra Singh, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-03-06',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.</p><p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.</p><p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:</p><p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.</p><p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.</p><p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.</p><p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.</p><p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.</p><p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.</p><p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.</p><p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.</p><p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758128',
	(int) 1 => 'satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758128/satya-narayan-bada-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Shashi Kant Sharma, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellants Satya Narayan @ Bada, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai against the judgment dated 5th July, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi whereby accused appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada was convicted for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment of two months' SI and accused appellants Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai were convicted for the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further suffer one month RI.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. According to prosecution story, Ramkishan PW-4 informed the police of Police Station, Nainwa on 15th November, 1999 at 3 pm that dead body of Mahaveer is lying in 'KHAL' in the BEED of Maharaja. This information was recorded by the police as Ex. P/33. On this information, PW. 19 Shivji Ram, the then in charge of Police Station, Nainwa reached on the spot where the dead body of Mahaveer was lying. It is also alleged that on the place of occurrence, Gaindilal father of the deceased submitted report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivjiram wherein it was mentioned that on that day i.e. 15.11.99 at about 10 am his son Mahaveer left home without taking meal for new well. After some time, he reached on the field of Maharaja Ki BEED. Misribai wife of deceased Mahaveer went there taking meal for him. After one hour he himself went towards that BEED and when he reached on the spot he saw Misribai wife of deceased was crying and his son Mahaveer was in the pool of blood and was lying dead. Misribai told him that three or four persons have inflicted injuries on the person of Mahaveer by Kulhari and Sticks and committed his murder and because of sorrow Misribai could not tell the names of those persons. It was also mentioned in that report that he, Prabhu and Hazari Bairwa had a dispute about land, therefore, he has doubt that his son might have been murdered by Prabhu and Hazari and his sons. Police registered a case Under Section 302/34 IPC. On this report, police started investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared a site plan. Autopsy was done on the body of deceased and post mortem report was prepared. Kulhari and Sticks were recovered by the police on the information and at the instance of accused Satya Narayan and Santosh. One T-shirt was also recovered from the accused Satya Narayan @ Bada and after completion of investigation, police filed challan against the appellants Satya Narayan, Smt. Motiya Bai and Smt. Santosh Bai for the offence Under Section 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa where from the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bundi. Then this case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi and ultimately the case was transferred to Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi where after trial these accused were convicted as indicated herein above.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses namely PW-1 Mathura Lal, PW 2 Hanuman Sharma, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Ramkishan, PW. 5 Moti, PW. 6 Misribai, PW 7 Gaindilal, PW. 8 Gourishankar, PW. 9 Sukhdev, PW. 10 Aziz Mohd. PW. 11 Jagdish, PW 12 Nandram, PW. 13 Nawalkishore, PW. 14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Saxena, PW. 15 Rajesh Kumar Garg, PW. 16 Buddhilal, PW. 17 Lalchand, PW. 18 Krishnakant Sharma and PW. 19 Shivjiram. Statements of Krishnakant Sharma and PW 19 Shivjiram. Statements of accused appellants Under Section 313 were also recorded. DW-1 Girraj and DW-2 Bajranglal were examined as defence witnesses.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact that there is animosity between accused and complainant party and these accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case because of animosity. It is also urged that it was a blind murder and nobody knew who has committed the murder of Mahaveer. According, to prosecution, incident took place at 10.30 am on 15.11.99 and Ramakishan has informed the police at 3 pm that a dead body of Mahaveer is lying in Beed of Maharaja. Ramakishan has not informed the police about the names of these assailants. On this information Shivjiram Police Officer of Nainwa came on the spot and on the place of occurrence father of the deceased PW-7 Gaindilal submitted a written report Ex. P/10 to police at about 3.30 AM and even in that report names of these assailants were not mentioned. It is also urged that prosecution is relying on the statement of Moti, Misribail and Gaindilal. Prosecution wants to say that Moti was present at the time of occurrence and he has seen the entire incidence but his name does not find place in police report Ex. P. 10 and there is no reason why his name is not mentioned in the first information report if he has seen the occurrence and was present on the spot. It is also argued that during trial Misribai has given the statement as an eye witness and has said that she has seen three accused appellants Satyanarain, Smt. Motiya and Smt. Santoshbai inflicting injuries to Mahaveer. She had told entire story to Gaindilal and also told the names of all the assailants. If this is true then why names of these appellants have not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P. 10 which has been submitted by Gaindilal. It is also urged that independent witnesses of the recovery of Kulhari and Stick have not supported the prosecution case as they clearly says that no Kulhari and stick were recovered in their presence. It is also urged that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated and they should be acquitted of the charges and the judgment of the trial court should set aside.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the entire evidence available on record. We are of the view that trial court has convicted the accused appellants mainly on the testimony of Smt. Misribai and Moti. We have examined their statements minutely. In this case, first information report Ex. P. 10 is very material. It was submitted by father of the deceased PW. 7 Gaindilal at 3.30 pm to police Officer Shivjiram at the place of occurrence. In this report, name of Moti does not find place, therefore, we should examine his statement very cautiously. Moti PW. 5 is a chance witness as he himself says that he lives at Triveni Nagar in Jaipur. He goes to his village only on festivals. He himself deposed in his statement that he went on the field on that day only. After reading his entire statement, we come to the conclusion that definitely he is a chance witness and there are many contradictions in his statement which has been given in the trial court. In his examination in chief he categorically says that he has not seen anybody beating Mahaveer. In examination in chief he simply says that he has seen these accused persons running and Satyanarayan was having Kulhari in his hand but later on he starts saying that he has seen Satyanarain inflicting injuries on the head of deceased by Kulhari. One thing is very important in his statement that he says that he told entire occurrence to Gaindilal at 10 am and he specifically says that on the day of occurrence at 10 am he has told the name of all the three assailants and entire occurrence to Gaindilal. It is also the case of the prosecution that Gaindilal has submitted the written report Ex. P. 10 to Police Officer Shivji Ram at 3.30 pm at the place of occurrence. It clearly means that when Gaindilal submitted written report to Shivjiram then Gaindilal had knowledge that Moti had seen that entire occurrence. He had also knowledge of the names of all the three assailants but even then written report Ex. P. 10 does not speak about the names of these appellants or names of Moti as an eye witness. It clearly indicates that presence of Moti at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because if Moti would have seen entire occurrence and would have told entire story to Gaindilal at 10 am then positively all the things would have been there is written report Ex. P. 10. Moti is a relative of the deceased as he himself says that he is cousin of deceased. When we consider all the above points we come to the conclusion that the statement of Moti is not reliable.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. We have also considered the statement of Smt. Misribai who is wife of deceased. The question is whether she has seen the occurrence or she reached on the spot after the occurrence. When we read written Report which was submitted by PW. 7 Gaindilal father of the deceased at 3.30 pm we notice that the names of assailants do not find place in that report. Gaindilal mentions in this written report that Misribai told him that three or four persons were inflicting injuries by Kulhari and stick on the person of Mahaveer, When we examine written report Ex. P. 10 we come to the conclusion that by that time nobody told Gaindilal names of the assailants. When we examine the statement of Gaindilal, he says that he cannot explain why names of assailants do not find place in written report Ex. P. 10. He says in his statement that at 11 am, Moti and Misribai both told him about the occurrence. He also states in his statement that Moti and Misribai told the name of Satyanarain and both the ladies. Moti and Misribai both told him that these accused appellants Satyanarain Motia and Misribai were assaulting to deceased Mahaveer. When we read statement of Misribai we find that she also says that she and Moti both told about incident to Gaindilal. According to statements of Moti and Misribai both the eye witnesses have told the names of assailants to Gaindilal upto 11 am, if this is true that Moti and Misribai have really seen the occurrence and they have told the names of these appellants then their names must have been in FIR. This is such a lacuna which creates substantial doubt in our mind. We are of considered opinion that it is a blind murder and a case against these appellants was developed later on.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. So far as recovery of Kulhari from accused appellant Satya Naraln Is concerned, both the Independent witnesses namely PW. 8 Gourishankar P. 9 Sukhdev have turned hostile and have not corroborated the prosecution story. PW. 10 Mohammad Aziz wa produced In the court for proving the recovery of stick from Santosh but he was also turned hostile. He also did not support the prosecution story.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. After examining the entire evidence, we come to the conclusion that prosecution has based his case mainly on the statements of Mot! and Smt. Misribai. The prosecution has produced them as eye witnesses. We have examine their statements minutely and we come to the conclusion that both the witnesses are not at all reliable witnesses. Recovery of Kulhari from accused Satyanarain and recovery of stick from Santosh are not also proved as Independent witnesses of these recovery have not supported the prosecution version. After considering the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against these accuses appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. As a result of above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside conviction and sentence of the appellants rendered by the impugned judgment dated July 5,2002. We acquit the appellants of the charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Appellant Satya Narayan @ Bada, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appellants Motiya Bai and Santosh Bai are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Rajasthan High Court
Decided On	Mar-06-2006
Case Number	D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2002
Judge	Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.
Reported in	RLW2006(3)Raj1959; 2006(3)WLC166
Acts	Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 323 and 341; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313
Appellant	Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors.
Respondent	State of Rajasthan
Appellant Advocate	Manindra Singh, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor
Disposition	Appeal allowed

Satya Narayan @ Bada and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment