Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 779 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ravindra Singh

2001-05-04

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar Camp- Shrikaranpur in Sessions Case No. 45/85 by which he acquitted the accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh of the charges for the offence Under Sections 120B, 124A Indian Penal Code and Section 3/6 IPPR Act and 3/12 of the Passport Act, 1969 and accused respondent Tahalsingh of the charge for the offence Under Sections 120B and 124A Indian Penal Code. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows: PW 9 Jilay Singh lodged a report Ex.P/9 with Superintendent of Police, Sri Gangangar on 17.9.1984 stating inter-alia that in FIR No. 292 dated 24.8.1984 of Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for the offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, accused respondent Ravindra Singh was arrested and during investigation of that case, it came into light that on 7.6.1984, a meeting was convened in Gurudwara, Ganganagar, in which accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh and one Balvindra Singh participated and that meeting was convened against the military action which was taken by the Union Government in Amritsar and they all persons made conspiracy and according to that conspiracy, on 9.6.1984 the accused respondents assembled at 25H and in pursuance of that conspiracy, they removed khutas from the railway crossing 30H so that passenger train might upside down, but in that effort they did not achieve their object and, thereafter, on 10.6.1984 through BSF Check Post-IX, without any valid license, they crossed Indian Border and reached Pakistan and took shelter at Check Post Lalbanga and they met with the Pakistan officials and from there, they went to Lahore and stayed there for ten days and prepared a plan to cause damage to the property in India and returned back to India after obtaining six Hand-granades, two Stainguns and three Revolvers. This report Ex.P/9 was sent to the. Police Station Kesrisingh District Sri Ganganagar, where regular FIR Ex.P/10 was got registered and investigation was started.After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.On 10.1.1986, the learned Addl. This report Ex.P/9 was sent to the. Police Station Kesrisingh District Sri Ganganagar, where regular FIR Ex.P/10 was got registered and investigation was started.After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.On 10.1.1986, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence Under Sections 120B, 124A, 3/6 IPPR Act and 3/12 of the Passport Act against accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh and for the offence Under Sections 120B and 124A Indian Penal Code against accused respondent Tahalsingh. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It may be stated here that as the accused respondent No.4 Tahalsingh has died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, evidence in respect of him shall not be discussed.During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded.After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar through his judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.5.1991 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them holding inter-alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents.Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 3. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses "and especially the statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh should have been believed by the learned trial Judge and thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal are erroneous one and should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order in this appeal. 5. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused respondents and gone through the record of the case. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar, I find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against any of the accused respondent. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has observed that prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Richhpal, PW2 Gurdevsingh, PW 3 Bhupendra Singh and PW4 Paramjeet Singh have been declared hostile and they state nothing against the accused respondents.The case of accused respondent No. 3 Tajendra Singh 7. So far as this accused respondent No.3 Tajendra Singh is concerned, there is evidence against him that he gave information Ex. P/13 to PW7 Abdul Azeej to the effect that he could get recovered 38 bore revolver and in pursuance to that information, revolver was recovered through Ex.P/14. 8. It may be stated here that this accused respondent No.3 Tajendra Singh was arrested on 29.9.1984 and information Ex.P/13 was given by him on 3.10.1984 and from 29.9.1984 upto 13.10.1984 he remained in police custody. During trial PW7 abdul Azeej, who made recovery of revolver through Ex.P/14 as per the information of this accused respondent No.3 Tajendra Singh, was unable to recognise this accused respondent No.3 Tajendra Singh in Court. Upon this, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 came to the conclusion that so-called recovery cannot be held to be proved. 9. In my considered opinion, the reasoning given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 about this accused respondent No.3 Tajendra Singh appears to be correct one. Apart from this, two motbir witnesses of fard of recovery Ex.P/14, namely, Mirchuram and Adar Chand have not been produced. Therefore, the said recovery cannot be held to be proved. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has not committed error in holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against this accused respondent No. 3 Tajendra Singh for any of the charges framed against him.The case of accused respondent No. 1 Ravindra Singh 10. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has not committed error in holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against this accused respondent No. 3 Tajendra Singh for any of the charges framed against him.The case of accused respondent No. 1 Ravindra Singh 10. The case of the prosecution against this accused respondent No. 1 Ravindra Singh is that during arrest, he pointed out the place from where he crossed the Border and for that a site plan Ex.P/6 was prepared and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 came to the conclusion that this evidence was not sufficient in any manner to connect him with the commission of crime. 11. In my considered opinion, the above reasoning given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 appears to be correct one.The case of accused respondent No.2 Amritpal Singh 12. This accused respondent No.2 Amritpal Singh was arrested through Ex.P/5 and during investigation, he gave information Ex.P/12 to the effect that he could also point out the place from where they crossed the Border and in pursuance of that information, site plan Ex. P/8 was prepared and similarly, this evidence was also not found sufficient by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 arid by doing so, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has committed no mistake. 13. Another important witness of this case is PW10 Mahendra Singh. He has stated that on the relevant date, he reached the village 26H and found there Sita Singh and near the house of Santosh Singh, accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh and Balvindra Singh and Bajindra Singh were standing and they were talking that since Bhindrawale had been killed and military had been sent to Golden Temple, therefore, they would take revenge and they were also saying that they would do unlawful activities in India. 14. The statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh was not relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 holding that his statement, in absence of statement of Sita Singh, who was present at that time, cannot be believed and Sita Singh has not been produced by the prosecution and has been withheld. 14. The statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh was not relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 holding that his statement, in absence of statement of Sita Singh, who was present at that time, cannot be believed and Sita Singh has not been produced by the prosecution and has been withheld. Therefore, there is no corroboration to the statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh, Apart from this, PW10 Mahendra Singh, after hearing the above words, did not tell any body what he has heard and the conduct of this witness is unnatural one in the sense that nobody would utter such type of words in public. 15. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 for not relying upon the statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case be/and all reasonable doubts against any of the accused respondents for the offences for which they have been charged and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has given cogent reasons in acquitting the accused respondents. 17. It may be stated here that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not went to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Therefore, this Court does not went to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar.Appeal dismissed. *******