Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1331 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ishwar Chand

2002-07-30

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against a judgment dated 21.11.1986, where by the two respondents - Ishwar Chand and Subhash were acquitted of the charges under Sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Some time, during the night intervening between 15th/16th August, 1976, certain idols from the temple situate in village Kothian were stolen by some unknown thieves. The matter was reported to the police by the 'Pujari' of the temple and a case of theft was registered at Police Station, Phuliakala. From the investigation, it came out that during the early hours of 16.8.1976, four persons were seen near the place of occurrence with an Autorickshaw and they were also seen carrying a bedding in the said Autorickshaw. Further, it came out that the Autorickshaw belonged to respondent Ishwarchand. According to the prosecution story, the accused Satyanarian and Kishanlal were the persons who lifted the statues from the temple and brought them to the waiting Autorickshaw, where the respondents Ishwar Chand and Sub-hash were waiting. The Autorickshaw was allegedly taken to the shop of the 5th accused Navratan Mal and placed in his shop, from where ultimately, the material was recovered. 3. All the live accused persons, namely, Ishwar Chand, Subhash, Satyanarain, Kishan Lal and Navratan Mal were charged for the offences under Sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them pleaded not guilty. As many as 24 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 21.11.1986. The accused Navratan Mai was found guilty under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons Satyanarain and Kishan Lal were found guilty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the three persons were awarded sentences for the same. 4. However, in respect of the respondents Ishwar Chand and Subhash, the learned Court found that the evidence was quite unsatisfactory and, consequently, both of them were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come in appeal in respect of the acquittal order passed in favour of the two respondents. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record of the case. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come in appeal in respect of the acquittal order passed in favour of the two respondents. 5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record of the case. 6. As pointed out earlier the prosecution story is to the effect that Satyanarain and Kishanlal were the persons who transported a bedding, which allegedly contained the stolen material. According to the prosecution story, Ishwar Chand was the Autorickshaw driver and he along with Subhash were sitting in the Autorickshaw and were not participants in lifting the stolen material. Needless to say that it is difficult to infer that Ishwar Chand and Subhash had the knowledge about the contents of the bedding. There is no evidence to the effect that the material was seen by them or was in their knowledge and, consequently, no mens rea can be inferred on their part. Moreover, the learned trial Court has made an observation that the respondents were sitting inside the Autorickshaw and, according to the witnesses, they were seen for a few seconds only. In these circumstances, it becomes highly suspicious that the witnesses shall not make a mistake in identifying them. According to the prosecution story, the accused-persons were seen at about 5 a.m. in the morning and it is not expected to recognise the persons sitting inside the Autorickshaw. So far as the accused Subhash is concerned, he was got identified more than six months after the incident. The witnesses have not clarified as to which of the two persons were" sitting inside the Autorickshaw and which were the other two who carried the bedding, during their testimony. PW-3 Vijay Shanker has stated" that he is not sure as to whether the persons in the Autorickshaw were three or four. Needless to say that when even the number of the accused-persons was not clear, then it is difficult to believe that the witnesses would be able to identify correctly the persons who were allegedly seen near the temple. 7. I find no reason to differ with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court 8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******