{"id":258780,"date":"2009-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-19T17:36:31","modified_gmt":"2018-05-19T12:06:31","slug":"jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009<\/div>\n
    \n\n \n \n \n\n \nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR\nJUDGMENT \n(1)RAMZAN AND ANR.   VS. STATE OF RAJ. \n(S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2004)\n\n(2)JAMIL KHAN   VS. STATE OF RAJ. \n(S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2005)\n \nUnder Section 374<\/a> Cr.P.C.  against the judgment  dated November 30, 2004  of Addl. Sessions Judge  (Fast Track) No.1 Alwar  in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2003 (135 of 2003) whereby the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil Khan  were convicted and sentenced under Section 395<\/a> IPC, to suffer 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000\/- each in default of payment of  fine to further suffer one year RI, under Section 397<\/a> IPC to suffer 7 years RI and fine of Rs.5000\/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI and accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil Khan were further convicted and sentenced under Section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act to suffer 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000\/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI. \n\n\nDate of Order\t\t:  September 18  , 2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nHONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA\nREPORTABLE\nMr. Shiv Lal Verma and Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore for Mr. N.A. Naqvi for the appellants Ramzan and Liyakat and Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan for the accused appellant Jamil Khan.\n \nMr. Peeyush Kumar,  Public Prosecutor for the State. \n\n\n      BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
 \t\tThese two  appeals have been filed by the appellants Ramzan, Liyakat and Jamil Khan  against the judgment  dated November 30, 2004  of Addl. Sessions Judge  (Fast Track) No.1 Alwar  in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2003 (135 of 2003) whereby the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil Khan  were convicted and sentenced under Section 395<\/a> IPC, to suffer 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000\/- each in default of payment of  fine to further suffer one year RI, under Section 397<\/a> IPC to suffer 7 years RI and fine of Rs.5000\/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI and accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil Khan were further convicted and sentenced under Section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act to suffer 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000\/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI.\n<\/p>\n
2.    As both these appeals have been filed against the judgment  dated November 30, 2004 in  FIR Ex.P.19 (written report Ex.P.18), they are being disposed by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Brief facts of the case are that on July 28, 2003 at 3.30 a.m. complainant Lallu Khan s\/o Roopa submitted a written report (Ex. P.18) at P.S. M.I.A. Alwar Camp Thekda ka Bas alleging therein that  in the night at around  1.30 ‘O’ clock wife of the complainant went outside the house to answer the natural call then 7-8 persons forcefully entered in the house and started beating his wife and snatched the ornaments which she was wearing.  They also snatched the wrist watch of the complainant and some money from  his pocket. On hearing hues and cries his younger  brother reached over there.  The miscreants while started running one amongst them was caught  who  sustained  injuries due to fall.  The miscreant who was caught disclosed his  identity  as Razaq and informed that his other associates were  7 in number  and their names are Mehboob, Ashram, Jameel, Taiyab, Zahid, Ramzan and Liyakat, who are having arms with them and  looted articles are also with them.  It is further alleged that  the complainant and others tried to catch them, however, they opened fire and ran away.  His son Subedin and wife  sustained injuries. On the aforesaid report,  the police registered case against the accused persons for the offences under sections  395<\/a>, 397<\/a> IPC and  3\/25 Arms Act<\/a> and the investigation was started.  After concluding the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused for  the offences under sections 395<\/a> and 397<\/a> IPC and sections 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act.  On committal the trial court framed  charge against the accused persons for the offences under sections  395<\/a> and 397<\/a> IPC and 3\/25 Arms Act<\/a>.  In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and also exhibited 28 documents. The accused appellants were examined under section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution case.  After hearing  the arguments  the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Mr. Shiv Lal Sharma, Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore, for Mr. N. A. Naqvi for the accused appellants Ramzan and Liyakat Ali and Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, learned  counsel appearing for the accused appellant Jamil Khan, argued that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond  the reasonable doubt. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of witnesses, and therefore no reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses.   The conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The sentence awarded by the trial court is excessive, keeping in view  the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place.  There is no justification to award excessive  sentence.  The statements of accused appellants under section 313<\/a> Cr.P.c. are not recorded in accordance with the provisions of law, as all incriminating circumstances were not put to appellants and sufficient opportunity  of defence is not afforded to appellants.   No reliance can be placed on the statement of complainant because he has  changed his version at different places.   The incident  had not taken place as stated by the complainant.  The prosecution witnesses have made improvements in their statements and therefore  no reliance can be placed on their testimony. The appellants were not  previously known to the complainant and others.  However, test identification parade is not  conducted. Therefore, the accused cannot be connected with the crime and the learned trial court committed an illegality  while recording the conviction.  There was a dispute in between the complainant and Mehboob regarding some money transaction and when Mehboob went to the complainant and demanded money, some  dispute started and  stones were pelted amongst them.  The complainant caught  Razaq who was an associate of Mehboob and later on concocted the false story. In these circumstances the learned counsel argued that the accused appellants may be  acquitted and atleast their sentence should be reduced.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe learned Public Prosecutor  on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction against the accused appellants.  The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellants. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper.  The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
6.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Before proceeding further a brief of the evidence produced by the prosecution is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
        PW.1 Takhat Singh, was one of the Motbir and independent witness to the memos of arrest and recoveries made from the accused persons. He put his signatures A to B on Ex. P.1 memo of arrest of accused Jahid Khan, Ex. P.2 arrest memo of accused Liyakat, Ex.P.3 arrest memo of accused Teyabkhan, Ex. P.4 arrest memo of accused Ramzan, Ex. P.5 arrest memo of accused Mehboob Khan, Ex.P.6 arrest memo of accused Ashram, Ex.P.7 arrest memo of Jamil khan, Ex.P.8 recovery memo of articles Silver Payjeb, from accused Jahid s\/o Ramjani, Ex. P.9, recovery memo of wrist watch from accused Liyakat son of Alladin, Ex.P.10 recovery memo of live cartridge 315 Bore oriental and 4 hand made live cartridges from accused Ramjan, Ex. P.11 recovery memo of golden Hansali from accused Teyab son of Chhotelal, Ex.P.12  recovery memo of  12 bore Deshi Katta ( 12 bore country made gun)from accused Jamil, Ex. P.13, 12 bore Deshi Katta from accused Mehboob, Ex.P.14 Deshi Katta 12 bore ( 12 bore country made gun) from accused Asram and Ex. P.15 site map of place of incident. He stated in his statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
    ??.28.7.03 ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???. ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ???????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???”\n<\/p>\n
     PW.2 Moolchand, who was also witness to recoveries from the accused persons, amongst PW.1, but he has been declared hostile. But he admitted his signatures on Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.15 and also stated that Teyab and Jamil were arrested in his presence and he also stated that Hansli was recovered from accused Teyab pointing towards him. He stated in his statement as under:\n<\/p>\n
  ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?????  ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??.1 ?????? ??????? ??. 15 ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ???”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  PW.3 Hajarilal, SI Police Station MIA Alwar stated in his statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????????  ??? ????. ??????? ????. ??????? ????.??????? ????. ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????  ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??\n<\/p>\n
     ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????, ?????, ??????, ????, ?????, ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??.  ??????? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? , ????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ? ???? ?? ?????  ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???  ?? ???????  ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??  315 ??? ?? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? 315 ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??. ???????? ?? ???? ?????\n<\/p>\n
     ??? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????  ?? ????  ??? ???? ???? ???? ???. ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????  ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????  ???? ?? ??? ?? ????  ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????  ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????  ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????  12 ???  ????? ? ?????? 12 ??? ???? ??  ?? ? ??. ?? ?????  ? ????? ???. ???? ??? ??  ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???  ???? ???? ?? ???. ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????  ?? ??? ?? ????  ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ??????, ???????? ?????? ? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????”\n<\/p>\n
             PW.4 Neksingh, Head Constable Armorer, Reserve Police Lines, Alwar, who examined the arms recovered from the accused persons.  He stated in his statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
   ??. 16.8.03 ?? ??? ??? ????. ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????. ??????? ? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??.??.??. ???.????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? 12 ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ??. ? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?, ?? ?? ??, ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????. ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??.17 ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ???”\n<\/p>\n
        PW.5 Banbihari, HC No. 138 Police Station MIA Alwar stated that Sabudin came to him at Bagad Chowki at 2.55 a.m. who stated to him that Thekda Ka  Bass at the residence of  Lallu Khan some miscreants came and they fired at them and one of the miscreant has been caught by them. He stated in his statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???. ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????\n<\/p>\n
     ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????????  ? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? . ????? ?? ? ???. ?????  ?? ?? ?????? ????? 315 ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???, ???? ?? ????? ???? ??, ????  ?? ?? 12 ??? ?? ????? ?????, ????? ?? ??  12 ??? ?? ????? ?????  ? ?? ????? ??????, ????? ?? ??  12 ??? ?? ?????  ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ????  ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???”\n<\/p>\n
    Pw.6 Banshilal, Constable No.345 Police Station M.I.A. Alwar stated about his posting at MIA Camp Dekda and receipt of report by him and thereafter handing over it to the Police Station MIA at 4.00 a.m. over which case No.259\/03 was marked and return back to him for giving it to SHO. Report is Ex .P.18 which was chalked out as FIR Ex. P.19 where he has put his signatures at place A to B.\n<\/p>\n
       PW.7 Dr. Amarsingh Rathore, who examined the injuries of Subdeen son of Lallu,  Smt. Janti wife of Lallu and Lallu son of Roopa,  on 29.7.20003.  He stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? :-\n<\/p>\n
1. ???? ??? ??? 1×1 ????. ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???\n<\/p>\n
2.????? ??? ??? 3x3x1 ????. ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??\n<\/p>\n
       ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? 24 ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??. 20 ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ?????????  ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ? ????. ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?? 24 ???? ?? ???? ?? ???\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.????? ??? ??? 6×4  ????. ?????? ???? ????\n<\/p>\n
2.???? ??? ??? 2×1 ????. ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???\n<\/p>\n
3. ????? 1×1 ????. ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???\n<\/p>\n
4.????? 1×1\/2 ????. ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??\n<\/p>\n
     ???? ??? ???? ?????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? 24 ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ??.22 ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      PW.8 Panchya, villager stated about how he caught hold of accused Teyab and thereafter police came and he was arrested.  In his statement he stated thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “??? 2003 ??? 15 ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? 10 ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???  ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???  ????? ????? ????  ?? ?? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???. ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   PW.9 Asar Khan, stated about the incident took place at the residence of his brother Lallu.  He put his signature A to B on the site map of the place of incident  Ex. P.23.  He also put his signature on Ex. P.24.  In his statement  he stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
 ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????-?: ????? ???? ??? ??  1-1.30 ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???  ????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???. ???”\n<\/p>\n
    “????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??. ?? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ??????? ??.24 ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ?”\n<\/p>\n
       PW.10 Lallukhan was the main eye witness, injured at the time of incident. He specifically implicated Ashram, Teyab, Mahboob, Jahid, Ramjani and Razak. Mehboob and Razak pointed Katta ( country made guns) at him. Jahid shown knife. Mehboob gave lathi blow on the head of his son. In his statement he stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
??? ?? ??? ?????,????, ?????, ?????, ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????, ????? ? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????, ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ????, ????? , ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???  ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ? ????? ????? ???.  ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????, ????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????, ?????, ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??  ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??”\n<\/p>\n
??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ???? ??? ?? 2500 ?????  ?????? ??? ”\n<\/p>\n
    PW.11 Janno wife of Lallukhan, stated in her statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????  ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ? ????? ????? ???\n<\/p>\n
  ???? ?? ???. ?????, ?????, ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???0 ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???. ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tPW.12 Jakir Hussain, stated about the dacoity took place at the residence of Lallu and about this brother of  Lallu  to him.  Brother of Lallu and he informed about the dacoity to  the police. He also informed about detaining of Razak.  In his statement he stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
      ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???  ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????????, ??????, ??? ? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????  ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????”\n<\/p>\n
       PW.13 Sabudin, one of the neighbour of complainant, who stated that in the night of 27 at 1.30 a.m. his wife wake up him and stated that at the residence of  Lallu some thieves have come.  On this he reached at the residence of Lallu. He stated in his statement thus :\n<\/p>\n
   “??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???.  ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ? ???? ????? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???   ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????”\n<\/p>\n
 “??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???  ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????  ????? ?? ??  ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???”\n<\/p>\n
    “????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???”\n<\/p>\n
         PW.14 Anand Singh, Arms Clerk, stated that on 7.10.03 he was posted as Arms Clerk in the office of Distt. Magistrate Alwar.  On that day on a request of SP Alwar in case No. 250 of 2003 against Ramjan, Jamil, Mehboob and Asram under section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a>  of the Arms Act. He presented the said case report before the Distt. Magistrarte  Shivjiram Pratihar, who as per the powers vested in him under sectionm 39 of the Arms Act<\/a>, gave sanction for prosecuting the accused persons under section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act.  The file after getting signature given to SP Alwar which  is Ex. P.25 where A to B is signature of Distt. Magistrate Shivjiram Paratihar and as I worked under him and that is why I know his signatures.\n<\/p>\n
       PW.15 Subedin son of Lallu, who was injured during dacoity   committed by the accused appellants, implicated all the accused persons including  Mehboob, Razak and Ashram, who were present in the court. He  stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
 ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ????? ????? ????? ????\n<\/p>\n
    ???: ????????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???  ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ???”\n<\/p>\n
       PW.16 Kailash Chand Meena, Police Inspector stated that on 28.7.2003 he was posted as SHO MIA, Alwar.  On that day Lallu submitted report over which he made endorsement and Constable Bansilal was sent  to Police Station for registering the case and Santlal ASI sent the report back after registering FIR where G to H Santlal put his signature. FIR Ex. P.19 was chalked out.  On 29.7.2003 he prepared the site map of the incident place Ex. P.23 where he put his signature E to F and C to D and G to H are signatures of Motbirans. On 28.7.2003, accused Jahid, Liyakat, Teyab, Ramjan, Mehboob, Ashram and Jamil were arrested through arrest memo Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.7 where he put his signature E to F and A to B and C to D are the signatures of Motbirans. On 1.8.2003 by Ex. P.23 accused Rajjak was arrested.  On 1.8.2003 accused Jahid  gave  information  that he is prepared to give recovery of silver Payjeb, which is Ex. P.27 and recovery of  Payjeb is vide Ex. P.8 and on it E to F he put his signature where A to B and C to D are the signatures of Motbirans and at place X thumb impressison of accused was obtained. He further stated in his statement as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??.15 ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???. ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????  ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??.28  ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???. ?????? ?? ?? ????  ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??.9 ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??.?? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??\n<\/p>\n
     ??.28.7.03 ?? 9.20 ? ?? ?? ???. ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? 319 ??? ?????? ? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? 315 ??? ?????  ???? ?? ?????  ???? ????? ??????? ??.10 ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??.?? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??  ??? ??? ???. ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??.11  ????? ?? ??  ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??  ??? ??? ???. ????  ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? 12 ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???????  ??.12 ???? ???? ??  ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??   ??? ??? ???. ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? 12 ??? ????? ????? ???????  ??.13 ???? ???? ??  ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ??  ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? 12 ??? ? ????? ?????? 12 ??? ???. ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????\n<\/p>\n
 ???????  ??.14 ???? ???? ??  ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? x ????? ?? ???. ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? 15 ?. ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ??. 2.8.03 ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????  ???????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??. 14 ??  ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ??  ??? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ??????? ??. 14 ?  ?? ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ”\n<\/p>\n
8.     The accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil were amongst others accused, who committed dacoity at the residence of Lallukhan and looted property from his house. The prosecution witnesses  Takhat Singh (PW.1), Hajarilal (PW.3), Banbihari (PW.5), Lallu Khan (Pw.10), Janno (PW.11) and Subedin (PW.15) all identified the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil came at the residence of Lallukhan and committed dacoity. Lallu Khan (PW.10) and Janno (PW.11) stated that Liyakat snatched wrist watch and Rs. 2500 from him.  Wrist watch recovered from Liyakat was identified by Lllukhan belonging to him. From the bare perusal of the  statements of  the prosecution witnesses mentioned above, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil beyond reasonable doubt for the offences charged against them.  Accused Liyakat was arrested vide Ex. P.2 arrest memo and on the basis of information given by him under section 27<\/a> of the Evidence Act ( Ex.P.28) wrist watch was recovered from him vide Ex. P.9. PW.10 Lallukhan proved and identified  that the wrist watch recovered from  Liyakat belonged to him. The arrest memo and recovery memo Ex.P.2 and Ex. P.9 were proved by the independent witness Takhat Singh (PW.1) and the same were also proved by Kailash Chand Meena (PW.16) SHO  in his statement, thus they were rightly convicted under section 395<\/a> and 397<\/a> IPC beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court.  Accused appellants Ramzan was arrrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.4 and from his possession one live cartridge original and four live cartridges hand made  (recovery memo Ex. P.10) were recovered to be used in 315 bore Barrel gun. PW.1 Takhat Singh proved Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.10 in his statement and stated that he put his signatures on Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.10.  In Ex.P.10 the recovered one live cartridge was marked as D and Four recovered hand made live cartridges were marked as D1. The FSL in its report dated 15.9.04 stated  that packet D contained one 7.62 mm. K.F. Rimless cartridge marked L\/6 and Packet D-1 contained Four locally made cartridges  marked L 7 to L\/10. In the result the FSL found  that one 7.62 mm rimless cartridge (L\/6) from packet D was found in mnessfired condition and Four  locally made iron cartridges with locally made  lead bullets ( L\/7 to L\/ 10) from packet D-1 are fire worthy ammunition, one cartridge (L\/9) was also test fired  in the laboratory and  calibire of these cartridges (L\/7 to L\/10) appear to be 8 mm\/ .315.  Thus it is clear that four cartridges recovered from Ramjan vide Ex. P.10 were fire worthy ammunition  and one 7.62 rimless cartridge  (L\/6) was found in mess fired condition. PW.14 Anandsingh, Arms Clerk, proved the sanction Ex. P.25 for prosecution of accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil under section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act for the recovery of arms from them.  Jamil accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.7 and from his possession one Deshi 12 bore Katta was recovered and the witness  Takhat Singh proved Ex. P.12 in the court and stated that the recovery  was made in his presence and he put his signature at place A to B.  Mool Chand (PW.2) though declared hostile, but he proved  his signatures on Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.15. PW.4 Nafe Singh Armourer in the Police Line Alwar stated that  all the three packets which contained 12 Bore Deshi kattas.  All the Kattas were found to be in working condition in mechanism.  He placed on record  report by him Ex. P.17 over which he put his signature A to B.  As submitted above it is further submitted that Anand Singh  (PW.14) proved the sanction under section 39<\/a> granted by the Distt. Magistrate for the prosecution of the accused appellant for offence under section 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> Arms Act for recovery of  deshi Katta from him.  Thus the prosecution has been able to prove case beyond reasonable doubt  against the accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil for the offences under sections 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced under sections 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act.   I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court for the offences under sections 395<\/a>, 397<\/a> IPC  against the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil and for sections 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> Arms Act against the accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil. The findings arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse.\n<\/p>\n
9.       The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the sentence awarded to the accused appellants for section 395<\/a> IPC is excessive. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the sentence of 10 years to  7 years for offence under Section 395<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
10.  For these reasons the appeals filed by the accused appellants are partly allowed.  The judgment of conviction dated November 30, 2004 of Addl. Sessions Judge  (Fast Track) No.1 Alwar in Sessions Case No. 119\/2003(135\/03) is confirmed for the offences under sections 395<\/a> and 397<\/a> of the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil and  further   conviction of accused appellants Ramjan and Jamil for offence under Sections 3<\/a>\/25<\/a> of the Arms Act, but the sentence awarded to the accused appellants Ramjan, Liyakat and Jamil for the offence under section 395<\/a> IPC from 10 years RI is reduced to  7 years RI.  The State Government is directed to consider the case of the accused appellants for remission under section 432<\/a> IPC in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                    (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.\n<\/p>\n
OPPareek\/  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1)RAMZAN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJ. (S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2004) (2)JAMIL KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. (S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2005) Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2878,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009"},"wordCount":2878,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009","name":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-19T12:06:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamil-khan-vs-state-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jamil Khan vs State on 18 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}