Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sugan Khan @ Shaukat Khan vs State on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 700/2002
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sugan Khan @ Shokat Khan S/o Farid Khan,
2. Ayub Khan S/o Hasam Khan,
3. Seth Khan @ Rahamat Khan S/o Fakir Khan
All B/c Kayamkhani, R/o fagali, PS Roll, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 839/2001
1. Ayub Khan S/o Hasam Khan,
2. Seth Khan @ Rehmat Khan S/o Fakir Khan,
Both B/c Kayamkhani, R/o Village Phagli, District Nagaur.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer.)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 405/2002
Sugan Khan @ Shaukat Khan S/o Farid Khan, B/c Kayamkhani,
R/o Village Fagli, Tehsil & District Nagaur.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Madan Lal &
Dr. Shanti Choudhary for accused
persons
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002]
Judgment
Order reserved on 09/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 11/09/2025
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J)
All the aforesaid criminal appeals have arisen out of the common judgment dated 16.10.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, in Sessions Case No.175/2001 (40/1999) by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however, convicted them for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 326/34 IPC and sentenced as under:
S.No. Offence U/S Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC 1 month SI - -
2. 323 IPC 1 month SI - -
3. 324/34 IPC 2 years SI Rs.100/- 7 days SI
4. 326/34 IPC 5 years SI Rs.200/- 15 days SI
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since all the matters are arising out of the same judgment and order, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.
Criminal Appeal No.700/2002 has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Whereas, Cr. Appeal Nos.839/2001 & No.405/2002 have been preferred by the present accused persons against their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 18.05.1999 at about 10:15 AM, complainant- Mushtaq (PW-13) gave a typed report to SHO, Police Station- Rol at (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] Government Hospital, Nagaur to the effect that on 18.05.1999 at about 5:00 AM, his brother- Mumtaz was proceeding toward Luharpura, Nagaur, from the village of Phagli for daily work. While passing through a curve near Gawai Nadi (pond) in Phagli Village, Mumtaz was confronted by the accused persons, namely Ilukhan, Hasukhan, Ayub Khan, Sethu Khan, and Sugan Khan, who were concealed at that location. The accused emerged from their hiding place and attacked Mumtaz with swords, barchis, and lathis. As a result, Mumtaz sustained severe injuries across multiple parts of his body. Hearing the commotion, the complainant and one Bhanwaroo Khan arrived at the scene and intervened to rescue Mumtaz. The accused individuals then fled the scene. Mumtaz was subsequently taken to the Government Hospital in Nagaur for medical treatment.
Based on the aforementioned report, the police registered FIR No. 26/1999 against the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, and 307 of the IPC, and initiated an investigation. During the course of treatment, Mumtaz succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the police added the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan only against three of the accused persons.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34 IPC to present accused persons. They denied the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] The present accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 16.10.2001 acquitted the present accused persons from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 & 326/34 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, the State is challenging the acquittal of the present accused persons for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and present accused persons are challenging their conviction for the aforesaid offences.
Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the present accused persons assaulted the deceased- Mumtaz, using a deadly weapon, resulting in him sustaining as many as fifteen injuries across various parts of his body. Some of these injuries were of grievous in nature. It is further submitted that these grievous injuries led to septicemia and toxemia, which ultimately caused the death of Mumtaz due to meningitis, approximately ten days after the incident. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor argues that the learned trial court erred in acquitting the present accused persons of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It is emphasized that substantial evidence exists against the present accused persons demonstrating their involvement in the commission of the offence. The prosecution has successfully established the offence under Section 302/34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt through the presentation of cogent documentary and oral evidence. In light of (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] the foregoing, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the State be allowed and that the present accused persons be convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
Per contra, regarding the acquittal of the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC, counsel submits that initially, in the FIR and in the statements of the eye- witnesses, five accused individuals were named. However, after investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against only three of these accused persons. Both the complainant- Mushtaq (PW-13), and Bhanwaroo Khan (PW-14) are eye-witnesses in the case, and they explicitly stated in their depositions that all five accused persons inflicted injuries upon the deceased- Mumtaz. Nonetheless, they did not specify which particular accused caused specific injuries to Mumtaz on particular parts of his body. It is further argued that the cause of death of the deceased was meningitis resulting from septicemia and toxemia, which developed from injury No. 5 sustained by Mumtaz. The deceased expired ten days after the incident due to negligence in his medical treatment. Additionally, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-21) specifically testified that septicemia and toxemia occurred as a consequence of septic injury No. 5, ultimately leading to Mumtaz's death from meningitis. The counsel contends that the septicemia and toxemia arose due to negligence in the medical treatment provided to Mumtaz. Therefore, the learned trial court has not erred in acquitting the present accused persons from the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
So far as the conviction of the present accused persons for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, and 326/34 IPC is (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] concerned, counsel submits that the incident occurred in 1999 and the maximum sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC is imprisonment for five years. As of now, the present accused persons have already served approximately three years of their sentence. Hence, except for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC, the present accused persons have already undergone the sentence imposed for the remaining offences. It is therefore prayed that the period of sentence already served by the present accused persons for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC be taken into account, and that the remaining sentence be reduced accordingly.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case.
Initially, the complainant- Mushtaq lodged the First Information Report against five accused persons including the appellants mentioning that they caused injuries to the deceased Mumtaz by deadly weapon viz sowrd, barchi and lathies. The Police after investigation, filed charge-sheet only against three accused-appellants and two accused were exonerated by the Police.
During the trial, Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (PW-21) has specifically deposed that injury No. 5 was responsible for the death of the deceased- Mumtaz. However, there is no evidence indicating that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding resulting from this injury. Furthermore, the immediate death of the deceased is not establish, as he succumbed ten days after the incident, following the medical treatment. The death was (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:09 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] attributed to septicemia and toxemia occurred. The principle of criminal jurisprudence requires that in order to convict an accused for murder, the prosecution must prove that the act of the accused was the direct and proximate cause of death. Where an intervening cause such as infection, delayed treatment, or medical complications leads to death, the liability for murder cannot be sustained. Thus, on meticulous examination of the evidence of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence including the injury report as well as postmortem report, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the present accused persons from offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Nevertheless, from the overall discussion and analysis of the evidence, it clearly emerges that the accused persons did assault deceased- Mumtaz and inflicted grievous injuries upon him. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the learned trial court has rightly convicted the present accused persons for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 and 326/34 IPC.
Additionally, this Court has considered that the present accused persons have so far undergone a sentence of about three years and the maximum sentence awarded by the trial court to the present accused persons is of five years SI for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC. Thus, they have already served the sentence awarded for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324/34 IPC.
However, considering the facts that the incident is related to the year 1999 and the present accused persons have so far undergone a sentence of about three years, we think it proper to reduce the sentence of the present accused persons for the (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:10 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40059-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-700/2002] offence under Section 326/34 IPC to the period already undergone by them.
Thus, while maintaining conviction of the present accused persons for offence under Section 326/34 IPC, their sentence for the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount, if not deposited, is hereby waived. The present accused persons are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal No.700/2002 preferred by the State is hereby dismissed having no substance.
The Criminal Appeal Nos.839/2001 & No.405/2002 preferred by the present accused persons are partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
77 to 79-MS/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:16:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:47:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)