Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 44 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Chuniya

2003-01-10

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.8.1989 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the trial court), whereby the trial court acquitted the respondent for the offences under sections 457 and 380 I.RC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial court. 3. On first information report, Ex.P/2 lodged by PW. 2 Rughnath Ram at Police Station, Jalore, Police investigated the matter and filed challari before the trial court against the respondent for the offences under sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The trial court framed the charges and read over the same to the accused-respondents. He denied the same and pleaded for trial. 4. Prosecution examined PW. 1 Jugal Kishore, PW. 2 Rughnath Ram, PW. 3 Adiya and PW. 4 Bhanwar Singh. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused was persuaded to settle the matter in the Lok Adalat held before the trial court on 20.5.1989 and, therefore, the respondent filed an application stating therein that he is a member of scheduled tribe and persuaded with the spirit of the Lok Adalat, makes confession. The trial court came to the conclusion that the confession made by respondent in his application is not a voluntary confession but it was made by inducement and, therefore, the trial court held that the confession made by the accused-respondent is irrelevant in the criminal proceedings and proceeded to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution. 5. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent and, therefore, acquitted him for the charges levelled against him. 6. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court. The prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the articles alleged to have been stolen. The prosecution has also failed to prove the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act alleged to have been given by the respondent. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the accused was arrested and while in police custody, he voluntarily made the disclosure with regard to recovery of the articles alleged to have been stolen. The prosecution has also failed to prove the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act alleged to have been given by the respondent. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that the accused was arrested and while in police custody, he voluntarily made the disclosure with regard to recovery of the articles alleged to have been stolen. The prosecution has also failed to prove the seizure memo of the articles. The prosecution has also failed to prove the identification of the articles. During the investigation, the articles were identified in the presence of Tehsildar, Jalore. The prosecution has failed to produce the Tehsildar, Jalore as a witness. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the articles were recovered, the complainant was present. Thus, the Complainant admitted to have seen the articles for the first time which are alleged to have been stolen, when they were shown to him from the sealed packet opened in the court. Thus, it cannot be said that proper identification of the articles has been carried out. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to show reliable evidence by which prosecution case can be said to have been proved. 8. Leaned Public Prosecutor has only relied on the application confession the offence before the Lok Adaiat. The application reads that he was persuaded and was induced by the Lok Adalat and thus, it is irrelevant in the criminal proceedings as envisaged under section 24 of the Evidence Act. Section 24 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person. Having considered the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no error in the judgment of the trial court. 9. in this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed. Bail bond and surety bond are discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******