STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HANIF KHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1014 · Decided: 23-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 1 
I 
[2009) 2 S.C.R. 1014 
1
( 
) 
A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v 
,_... 
HANIF KHAN & ANR. 
Criminal Appeal No. 362-363 9f 2009 
FEBRUARY 23, 2009 
.. 
B 
f.-
. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
ss. 376(2)(g), 302 rlw s. 34 ands. 201 rlwl s. 34- Offence 
.,._ 
I 
c under- Conviction by trial court..:.. Appeal- High Court allowed 
the same by a non-reasoned order - Justification of - Held : 
Not justified - It showed complete non-application of mind by 
the High Court - Order of trial court restored. 
The daughter of PW1 went missi~g and was later 
I 
D found dead. The Trial Court conv;icted the accused-
t--
respondents under ss. 376 (2)(g), 302 r/w s. 34 and s.201 
:i 
~ 
r-
r/w s. 34, IPC. The High Court discarded the evidence of 
I 
the eye witness PW2 and allowed the appeal field by the 
I 
respondents. 
\-
E 
In ,appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
High Court erred in discarding the evidence of PW2 
I 
without discussing her evidence and that merely because 
t
PW1 had not indicated in the complaint as to what PW2 
~ 
allegedly had fold him, it cannot ~e a ground to discard 
I 
F 
the evidence of PW2 who is none else than the wife of 
respondent no. 1. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The judgment of the High Court is practically 
I 
G unreasoned and shows complete non-application of mind. 
~I-
The trial court had analysed the evidence of PW2 in great 
1 
i:-
detail. The complainant PW1 was not an eye witness. The 
complaint field by PW1 shows that he had got information 
'
about the death of his daughter and how the dead body 
~ 
H 
1014 
..j r
t 
~·~ 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. HANIF KHAN & ANR. 
1015 
was found and in Court he had not stated that PW2 had A 
---oj 
told him anything. PW2 has only stated that the dead body 
of the deceased was taken out by her father with the help 
of th~ ·villagers. She has also stated in the cross 
examination that police was presentat the spot when .PW1 
arrived there. There is no evidence or any discussion or B 
talk between PW1 and PW2 before the complaint was field 
by PW1. The High Court's order is clearly unsustainable 
and is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Paras 
_J. 
6, 8 and 9] [1019-D-H; 1012-A-C] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c 
Nos. 362-363 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 27.09.2005 of the 
High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal 
No. 66 of ?003 and D.B. Criminial Jail Appeal No. 24 of 2004. D 
,, 
../(_ 
V. Madhukar, Sum it Ghosh, Jayendra Sevda, Aruneshwar 
Gupta, for the Appellant. 
S. Ramamani, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1 
1. Leave granted. 
~ 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division F 
bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the 
appeal filed by the respondents. Learned Additional Sessions 
Judge (Fast Track Court), Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar Rajasthan 
had convicted the respondents for. offences punishable under 
Section 376 (2)(g), 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with G 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 
1-
For the offence relatable to Section 372(2)(g) each was 
sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years, 
I 
for the offence relatable to Section 302 read with Section 34 to 
.. 
life imprisonment and for the offence relatable to Section 201 
H 
.. 
~ 
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
~
A 
read with Section 34 IPC for five years and in each case fine 
F 
_,,._..-
was imposed with default stipulation. Two appeals were filed 
F 
by the accused persons. Both the appeals were allowed. 
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
B 
On 11.04.2001 at 8.30 p.m. complainant Billu Khan son of 
Sayyed Khan, resident of Badopal, Tehsil Pilibanga submitted 
a typed report (Ext. P-1) before the Station House Officer, Police 
Station Sri Vijaynagar about the incident of this case to this 
.;.--
t= 
c 
effect that the marriage of the daughter of applicant Julekhan 
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') had been solemnized 
l=
with Bablu Khan son of Garu Khan. It is about three years when 
t-
her marriage had been solemnized. On 11.04.2001 in the 
morning the in-laws of the daughter of the applicant sent an 
D 
information about missing of Julekhan while prior to this, the 
message had been given about the death of the mother-in-law 
.~ 
of Julekhan and later, when he left from there, h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.