Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 84 (RAJ)

Laxmi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2002-01-10

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh District Churu in original Criminal Case No. 74/98 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence u/ss. 380, 406. 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- On 17.10.1997, PW-7 Ranjeet Mal lodged a report Ex.P/8 before Dy.S.P. Ratangarh District Churu stating inter alia that one late Bherudan made a Will of the property mentioned in the report in favour of Smt. Sarju Devi in Samvat 1988 and on 18.8.1987 Smt. Sarju Devi made a Will (Ex.P/4-A) in favour of her sister Smt. Laxmi Devi (PW-8 and petitioner in this revision petition) and that Will (Ex.P/4-A) was got attested through Notary Public on 21.8.1987 and the same was also got registered on 23.12.1989, but before that Will was got executed, Smt. Sarju Devi died on 9.12.1989. It was further stated in the report that PW-7 Ranjeet Mal and PW-8 Smt. Laxmi Devi (petitioner) used to live in Bombay and they left for Bombay after locking the house in question and for the purpose of keeping watch on that house, they authorised accused-respondent-Jhankar Devi and other accused-respondents. It was further stated in the report that when PW-7 Ranjeet Mal came from Bombay on 8.10.1997, he came to know that the accused-respondent-Jhankar Devi and his sons sold that house through registered sale deed Ex.P/7 to one Vimal Kumar and his wife Smt. Manju Devi and copy of that registered sale deed (Ex.P/7) was got obtained by him on 17.10.1997 and, thereafter, he lodged the report. On this report, police registered the case and started investigation and after usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence u/ss. 380, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC in the Court and on 24.3.1998, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh took cognizance against the accused-respondents for the said offences. On 25.9.2000, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh framed charges for the offence u/ss. 380, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the accused-respondents. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 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 u/s. 313. Cr.P.C. were re-corded. 380, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the accused-respondents. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 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 u/s. 313. Cr.P.C. were re-corded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused-respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh District Churu through his judgment and order dated 2.5.2001 acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence u/ss. 380, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC holding inter alia : 1. That prosecution through its evidence has failed to prove the execution of so-called Will (Ex.P/4-A) made by late Sarju Devi in favour of Smt. Laxini Devi (PW-8 and petitioner). 2. That since in the present case no recovery of alleged stolen articles has been made, therefore, no case for the offence u/ss. 454, 457 IPC is made out. 3. That the fact that house in question was entrusted by PW-7 Ranjeet Mal to the accused-respondents has not been proved. 4. That witnesses Prasanmal and Banshilal, lO of that case, have not been produced, though opportunities to produce them was given to the prosecution. 5. That prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dana Ram, PW-3 Jaswant Singh, PW-4 Radha Krishna, PW-9 Jeevanmal, PW-10 Nagarmal and PW-11 Gopal Singh have been declared hostile and they do not state anything against accused-respondents. 6. That prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. In this revision petition, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate are wholly erroneous one as no opportunity to produce the 10 of that case was given to the prosecution and furthermore, there is evidence of the fact that Will Ex.P/4-A was got executed by late Smt. Sarju Devi in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Laxmi Devi. Hence, it was prayed that this revision be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (Churn) be set aside. 4. Hence, it was prayed that this revision be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh (Churn) be set aside. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 5. PW-7 Ranjeet Mal is the lodger of the report Ex.P/8 and in other words, complainant in the present case. In his statement recorded in Court, he has clearly admitted:- (1) That probate of the Will Ex.P/4-A, which was got executed by late Smt. Sarju Devi in favour of the petitioner-PW-8 Smt. Laxmi Devi has not been obtained by him from the Court. (2) That no suit has been filed by him for cancelling the sale deed Ex.P/7 alleged to have been executed by the accused-respondents in favour of one Vimal Kumar and his wife Smt. Manju Devi. (3) That the articles alleged to have been stolen whether recovered or not, he does not know. (4) That no suit has been filed by him against Vimal Kumar and Smt. Manju Devi for taking possession of the disputed shop. 6. Similar is the statement of PW-8 Laxmi. Devi (petitioner). 7. In my considered opinion, from the above facts, no criminal case against the accused-respondents can be said to have been made out. When PW-7 Ranjeet Mal has not obtained any probate of the so-called Will (Ex.P/4 A) from the Court nor he has filed any suit for cancellation of the sale-deed Ex.P/7 alleged to have been made by the accused-respondents in favour of Vimal Kumar and Smt. Manju Devi, no case of any of the charges framed against the accused-respondents can be said to have been proved. 8. So far as the argument that no opportunity to produce the IO of that case was given, is concerned, in my opinion, if he would have been produced, the fate of acquittal would have not been disturbed in any manner, as the basic evidence requiring proof for the said offences is lacking in the present case. 9. Apart from this, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and he has given cogent reasons while acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them and it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. 9. Apart from this, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and he has given cogent reasons while acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them and it cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in dealing with the evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable and perverse. 10. For the reasons stated above, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate are liable to be confirmed and this revision petition deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the petitioner-Laxmi Devi is dismissed at the stage of admission, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh District Churu.Revision petition dismissed. *******