Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1242 (RAJ)

Girraj Prasad v. State

2005-04-27

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.- The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the Judgment and order dated 10.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui in Sessions Case No. 4/04 acquitting accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 of charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302, IPC, and alternative charges for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201, IPC. 2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the trial Court has not properly considered the entire facts and circumstances as also materials on record including evidence of three eye-witnesses namely; Rasal PW-9, Gujarmal PW-11 and Sumer PW-14 who have stated that they saw the accused strangulating deceased Mst. Keshanta, the married wife of Bahadur Singh. It is also contended that this has rendered the Judgment impugned not only illegal and perverse, but it tentamounts to material irregularity and jurisdictional error calling interference of this Court. 3. As per the prosecution case deceased Mst. Keshanta was married to acused-non-petitioner No. 1 Bahadur Singh in 1988. She had two children out of this wedlock, besides being pregnant for about eight months at the time of her death on 08.08.2003. It is alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/-and a motor-cycle as dowry and on this demand being not fulfilled, he murdered her by strangulating her and cremated her body without post mortem and without informing the police as well as the members of her family. An FIR being No. 127/03 came to be registered on the basis of the written report made by the brother of deceased Girraj Prasad PW-1. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201, IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial which was transferred to the Court below for trial. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui Distt. Dausa framed charges for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and in the alternative Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited 14 documents in support of the prosecution case. In their statements under Section 313, CrPC, the accused stated that the evidence produced against them was wrong and false. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited 14 documents in support of the prosecution case. In their statements under Section 313, CrPC, the accused stated that the evidence produced against them was wrong and false. They pleaded that Mst. Keshanta died of stomach ache and due to sudden illness. They got exhibited Exhibits D-1 to D-10 and examined Dhara Singh as DW-1 in their defence. 4. The trial Court after hearing both the sides acquitted the accused non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 of all the charges framed against them vide impugned Judgment and order. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order, complainant has filed this revision petition. However, the State has not filed any application for leave to appeal against the said Judgment . 5. The learned trial Court has found that besides being chance witnesses, the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses is un-natural. In view of the glaring material contradictions, incongruities, improbabilities and discrepancies in their statements, their evidence is unbelievable and un-worthy of trust. Mohar Singh PW-13 who, it was alleged, had written letter Exhibit P-13, has stated that what-ever was written in the letter Exhibit P-13 was got written from him by complainant Girraj Prasad PW-1. The Court below has found that the story of physical torture, harassment or cruelty to the deceased prior to her death on the part of the accused as also the story of administering poison to her by Bahadur Singh in the year 1993 are un-believable. 6. We have carefully scanned the evidence on record in the light of the contentions advanced at the bar. 7. The trial Court has rendered a detailed and well considered Judgment giving cogent and convincing reasons for not believing the testimony of the so called eye-witnesses. The trial Court has also found as a fact from the materials on record that the parents and other family members of the deceased had reached the house of the accused before her cremation and they had laid a lugadi on her dead-body. The statements of Jai Singh PW-10 and Rajesh Kumar PW-16 indicate that the names of Rasal PW-9, Gurjarmal PW-11 and Sumer Singh PW-14 were not disclosed by any of the witnesses or any member of the family of the deceased. Mst. The statements of Jai Singh PW-10 and Rajesh Kumar PW-16 indicate that the names of Rasal PW-9, Gurjarmal PW-11 and Sumer Singh PW-14 were not disclosed by any of the witnesses or any member of the family of the deceased. Mst. Prem Wife of Hari Singh accused non-petitioner No. 2 who is admittedly the real sister of deceased Keshanta had stated to the Investigating Officers that on the date of death of her sister Mst. Keshanta she was grinding black Jeera alongwith her. Accused non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Bahadur Singh and Hari Singh were not in the house. They had gone to the field. Mst. Keshanta had sudden pain in her back, where-upon she immediately sent for Hari Singh and Bahadur Singh from the field but by the time they reached the house, Mst. Keshanta had expired. The information about her death was sent to her parents who had come and had laid lugadi on the dead-body of Mst. Keshanta whose dead-body was thereafter cremated. Smt. Geeta has also corroborated the averments of Mst. Prem. Rajaram @ Rajju Patel and Ramjilal S/o Birbal have clearly belied the story of demand of dowry and torture or strangulation of the deceased by her husband. Rajesh Kumar PW-16, the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that the independent witnesses had not supported the complainant and his version. 8. Learned PP also could not point out anything from the record on the basis of which different view from the one taken by the Court below could be taken. 9. Thus, from the evidence and other materials on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the learned trial Court which is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The law in this behalf is well settled that the High Court should not normally interferer with the order of acquittal unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and based on misleading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. We do not find that any such case is made out. Thus, in our well considered view and in the face of the evidence and materials on record, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 10. Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.