By its judgment and order dated 11th November, 2008 the High Court came to the companyclusion that Daud Khan was number guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but was guilty of an offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the IPC.
The Trial Court also took the view that the FSL report clearly stated that a bullet had been fired from the pistol and it was number stated that the bullet taken out from the body of Nand Singh companyld number have been fired from the recovered pistol.
Five witnesses have testified to the events that took place at Bathra Telecom on the night of 19th June 2004.
The gun used by Daud Khan to shoot Nand Singh was recovered at his instance from Javed Khans possession.
Decision of the Trial Court Before the Trial Court, quite a few companytentions were urged.
Thereupon, Narendra Kumawat went to Nand Singhs residence and informed his brother PW 1 Gajendra Singh about the incident.
The case was tried by the Additional District Sessions Fast Track Camp Nimbahera, District Pratapgarh as Sessions Case No.103 of 2005.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, appeals were filed in the High Court by Daud Khan and Javed Beg challenging their companyviction and by the State challenging the partial acquittal of Javed Beg and companyplete acquittal of Nitin Sindhi.
The police had arrived at the spot and taken the injured Nand Singh to the hospital.
On 21st June, 2004 Daud Khan was arrested.
Feeling aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed, as mentioned above, by Daud Khan and the State.
The accused persons were appropriately sentenced.
While they were seated in the restaurant, Javed Beg accused No.2 and Daud Khan accused No.1 came there on a motor cycle.
They were chased by Narendra Kumawat and Nitin Sindhi but they were number successful in apprehending the assailants.
351 of 2010 is filed by Daud Khan challenging his companyviction for an offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the IPC.
The Trial Court accepted the recovery of the pistol, as well as unused cartridges, from Javed at the instance of Daud Khan.
Thereafter, Narendra Kumawat and Nitin Sindhi took Nand Singh to a nearby hospital on their motorcycle but Nand Singh was declared brought dead.
Criminal Appeal No.
The Trial Court also found that the time taken for lodging the FIR about one and a half hours was explained under the circumstances, since Nand Singh had been taken to the hospital and his brother Gajendra Singh PW 1 had to be informed of the incident.
Thereafter, Javed Beg was arrested on 15th July, 2004.
Nitin Sindhi was arrested on 28th July, 2007.
It was companytended that the First Information Report FIR is suspicious inasmuch as in the newspapers the next day, it was reported that unknown persons strangers had companymitted the murder of Nand Singh in an STD booth.
An explanation was, however, sought from the investigating officer PW 25 Rajinder Parik who tersely responded by saying that it was number his duty to send the special report to the companyrt or the Magistrate .
As far as the companyviction of Javed Beg under the Arms Act is companycerned, it was upheld by the High Court, but the sentence was reduced.
He was accompanied by his friends Nitin Sindhi accused No.3 and Narendra Kumawat.
A charge sheet was filed against all three persons and it was alleged that Daud Khan was guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act while the others were guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof and Section 109 read with Section 302 thereof.
It was argued that a report in this regard was lodged, but thereafter removed from the record and suppressed.
However, the Trial Court did number deal with the delay in informing the Magistrate of the lodging of the FIR.
Gajendra Singh also visited the hospital and then lodged FIR No.374/04 on 19th June, 2004 with the Nimbahera Police Station at about 10.30 p.m. Daud Khan and Javed Beg were named as the two accused persons.
Additionally, the officer in charge of the police station, PW 21 Surender Singh was number asked any question about the delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate.
The delay was found to be number unreasonable.
The High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Javed Beg of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the companyplete acquittal of Nitin Sindhi.
Actually the FIR was lodged on 20th June 2004 but was ante dated to 19th June 2004.
The Trial Court did number place any reliance on the newspaper reports since there was numberhing to show that a report had been filed with the companycerned police station that unknown persons had companymitted the crime.
Thereupon Daud Khan fired upon Nand Singh with a loaded pistol on the right side of his chest and then both of them escaped on their motor cycle.
The broad facts leading to the decision of the High Court are that on 19th June, 2004 at about 9.30 p.m. Nand Singh had gone to Bathra Telecom Restaurant at Nimbahera, District Pratapgarh in Rajasthan.
Madan B. Lokur, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2010 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the refusal of the High Court to uphold the companyviction of Daud Khan for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
