Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 876 (RAJ)

Hari Om S/o Shri Mihi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2003-06-12

S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 82/2001 registered at Police Station Uchchai (Sharatpur) for offence u/ss. 147, 323, 341, 307 & 336 of the IPC. The challenge has also been made to the order dated 21.5.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, Camp at Bayana passed in Sessions Case No. 61/2003, whereby the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-petitioners for the offences under aforesaid sections. 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant-Hari Singh lodged a written report with the Police Station Uchchain (Bharatpur) against the accused-petitioners on 22.5.2001 at 11.30 a.m. regarding an incident allegedly to have been taken place on 1.5.2001. It is stated therein that the marriage of his daughter Hem Lata was fixed with the accused-petitioner-Hari Om to be solemnised on 1.5.2001, but prior to it on 24.4.2001 the accused-petitioners came to his house and made a demand of CBZ Motor Cycle and coloured television in dowry. On this the complainant shown his inability to arrange for these items and cancelled the engagement of her daughter with the accused-petitioner-Hari Om and asked them to return the items he had given to them while settling the marriage, the details of which are - Rs. 1,11,000/- cash, one golden chain weighing about 15 grams, golden ring weighing `paanchana bhar', 19 utensils, five clothes of the boy, fruits, sweets, clothes for ladies etc. The accused-petitioners went from the house of the complainant with a threat to marry with his daughter on gun point. 3. On 1.5.2001 in the night at about 10.00 p.m. the accused-petitioners along with other 20-25 persons came in a Jeep and tried to take away Hem Lata, the daughter of the complainant, forcefully with them. On raising hue and cry, the villagers gathered there and the accused-petitioners fled away therefrom in their jeep leaving marshal on the spot. Accused-petitioner-Hari Om has inflicted knife injury in the stomach of Mohan Pyare. Other accused-petitioners pelted bricks stones. After investigation in the matter, the challan has been submitted against the accused-petitioners for the offence u/ss. 147, 336, 307 r/w Section 1.49 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. Under the aforesaid Sections charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners. 4. Other accused-petitioners pelted bricks stones. After investigation in the matter, the challan has been submitted against the accused-petitioners for the offence u/ss. 147, 336, 307 r/w Section 1.49 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. Under the aforesaid Sections charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners. 4. Accused-petitioner-Hari Om filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 466/2001 and other accused-petitioners S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 465/2003 in this Court. Both these criminal revision petitions were decided on 28.4.2003 and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court to decide afresh after hearing the accused-petitioners on the point of framing of the charges. Under the impugned order remanded matter has been decided. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused-petitioner-Hari Om u/ss. 147 & 307, IPC and against the other accused-petitioners u/ss. 147, 307/149 & 336 of the IPC and thus this revision petition. 5. Mrs. Anjoo Shukla, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the charge u/s. 307 of the IPC against the accused-petitioner No. 1 and u/s. 307/149 of the IPC against other accused-petitioners is not made out. The allegation in the FIR was that accused-petitioner No. 1-Hari Om has inflicted knife injury in the stomach of Mohan Pyare but Mohan Pyare himself has given an affidavit stating therein that some unknown person has inflicted this injury to him by some sharp weapon. The learned counsel for the accused- petitioners has read out before the Court the document Annexure-1 i.e. the alleged application of Mohan Pyare and his affidavit. 6. Document Annexure-1 is in the form of application in the name of Mohan Pyare and addressed to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range. This application bears thumb impression which is alleged to have been of Mohan Pyare. The affidavit also bears the thumb impression which is also alleged to be of the deponent. It is notarized by the Notary Public at Jaipur. 7. The learned trial Court considered this document in detail and I am satisfied it is not committed any illegality in not relying thereupon at this stage. Earlier the accused-petitioners were manipulating or tempering with the witnesses at the stage when they come to the Courts to give evidence. This tempering or maneuvering the witnesses either by muscles or money power was being used by the accused persons. Earlier the accused-petitioners were manipulating or tempering with the witnesses at the stage when they come to the Courts to give evidence. This tempering or maneuvering the witnesses either by muscles or money power was being used by the accused persons. Now they advanced their technology of maneuvering or tempering with the witnesses even at the stage of investigation or framing of charges. Every day we find in the Court that during the investigation or at the stage of framing charges such types of affidavits are being filed. The learned trial Court, in my opinion, is correct in its approach to hold that unscrupulous accused get such affidavits from these poor illiterate persons. leaving apart whether this affidavit is genuine or not, it leaves no doubt in my mind that Mohan Pyare is illiterate person. He is resident of village Pichuna, Police Station Uchchain, District Bharatpur and this affidavit has been notarized at Jaipur. That creates, prima facie, a strong suspicion about the genuineness of this document. In case, on the basis of such procured or maneuvered document on muscles or money power, the accused-petitioners are discharged, it will be traversity of justice. Crime graph is rising in the State. One of the reasons may be that on the basis of procuring or maneuvering the witnesses these unscrupulous accused are ensuring their release even at the threshold of the investigation or at the stage of charges. This is not the stage where this affidavit is to be relied upon and rightly the learned trial Court has not relied upon it. Shri Mohan Pyare himself has not produced this affidavit in the Court. Mohan Pyare could have appeared before the Court for recording his statement u/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C. but that has also not been done. 8. In the facts of this case no reliance could have been placed on this alleged affidavit of Mohan Pyare and rightly it has not been relied upon by the learned trial Court and the charges hive been framed against the accuses-petitioners. It is not the case where interference in the order of the learned trial Court is called for. 9. Thus, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. As a consequence of the dismissal of this revision petition, the stay application does not survive and the same is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******