Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1607 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mukhram

2005-05-31

B.PRASAD, SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC is directed against the Judgment dated 110.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.59/2004 (68/2003) - State vs. Mukhram, whereby accused Mukhraj has been acquitted of the offence charged with under Section 302 & 279 IPC 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 25.06.2003 at about 7 PM, PW. 11 Krishanlal, brother of deceased Mani Ram, lodged a verbal report ExhibitP/11 in the Police Station Goluwala inter alia stating therein that his brother Mani Ram, aged about 35 years, who was doing the work of Motor-driver was in the habit of taking liquor and Dodapost and because of his these bad habits, nobody was prepared to keep him in service as such he used to roam around without any work. It was further stated that on the day of incident at about 5:30 AM while the complainant was proceeding towards his village and reached at the bus-stand Ganganagar, he saw that Krishanlal was quarrelling with his brother. At that time Mukhram accused was also there. Krishanlal and Mukhram both started beating his brother and Krishanlal told accused Mukhram to drive the vehicle over his brother. Accused Mukhram then started a Max Jeep No. RJ-07-C-3749 and hit the jeep against his brother. Mukhram thereafter ran away from the site. It was also stated that on seeing this, he (the complainant) out of fear ran away from the place of incident. It was further submitted that the accused Mukhram and Krishanlal have inflicted injuries on the person of Maniram (to be referred to hereinafter deceased) and some persons have taken his brother for treatment in the Ganganagar hospital. 3. On this oral information, first information report No.109/2003 under Section 307, 323 and 34 IPC was registered and investigating commenced. During the course of investigation, the deceased was medically examined by PW. 18 Dr. Ved Prakash. Medical Examination Report of the deceased is Exhibit P/25. The deceased died during treatment. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW. 19Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra on 27.06.2003, report whereof is Exhibit P/27. After death of deceased, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added against the accused. The site was inspected and site-memo & site-plan respectively Exhibit P/12 & P/12A were prepared. The deceased died during treatment. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW. 19Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra on 27.06.2003, report whereof is Exhibit P/27. After death of deceased, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added against the accused. The site was inspected and site-memo & site-plan respectively Exhibit P/12 & P/12A were prepared. Blood smeared soil and control soil was taken by the police, which was sealed through memo Exhibit P/13. The pieces of headlight and indicator were seized and sealed through memo Exhibit P/4. The clothes of the deceased were taken by the police through memo Exhibit P/15 and memos of Panchnama and Fard Surat Hal Lash respectively Exhibit P/16 & P/17 were prepared. The dead body for cremation was handed over to the brother of the deceased through memo Exhibit P/18. The seized materials were sent to FSL, Jaipur for examination. The report received from FSL is Exhibit P/32. 4. After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhanga. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter for trial it reached to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hanumangarh but as the Court was vacant, the case was withdrawn from there and it came before the learned Sessions. Judge. 5. The charge against the accused was framed under Section 302 & 279 of the IPC. Accused denied the prosecution case and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined 21 witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence. 6. After close of the evidence of prosecution, the explanation of the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, vide Judgment and order dated 110.2004 acquitted the accused respondent. Hence, the State has filed this Criminal Leave to Appeal. 7. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case inspite of there being direct evidence available, the accused respondent has wrongly been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, therefore, the present appeal requires to be admitted. Hence, the State has filed this Criminal Leave to Appeal. 7. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case inspite of there being direct evidence available, the accused respondent has wrongly been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, therefore, the present appeal requires to be admitted. It has further been contended that the postmortem report proves that the deceased died unnatural death and since the prosecution has proved the case against accused-respondent, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused-respondent cannot be said to be legal, just and proper and the accused-respondent is required to be convicted and sentenced for the offences charges with. 8. We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court and the material available on record. In this case before granting leave record was called. 9. It is to be seen that in the instant case, FIR Exhibit P/11 makes a mention that the deceased was doing no work and was in the habit of taking liquor and drugs and he used to roam around without any work. According to the First Information Report, the incident was seen by PW. 11 Krishanlal - the brother of the deceased, but the brother of the deceased after seeing the incident did not wait there and ran away. This conduct of PW. 11 Krishanlal is not a natural one. Further, it is to be seen that prosecution witnesses PW. 1 Subhash, PW. 2 Raju, PW. 3 Banshidhar, PW. 4 Darshan Singh, PW. 5 Banwarilal, PW. 6 Ranjeet Kumar, PW. 7 Prithvi Singh, PW. 8 Mahesh Kumar, PW. 9 Mahendra, PW. 10 Bhanwarlal and PW. 12 Ashwini have not supported the prosecution case. They have been turned hostile. 10. The challan submitted was only against the present accused respondent and the involvement of co-accused Krishanlal Khot in the case was not found to be trustworthy. 11. PW. 14 Dalip Singh is the Constable and he has stated that PW. 11 Krishanlal was not present at the time of incident and in fact the present case was one of accidental death where it was not known as to who had hit the deceased. He has further stated that PW. 11 Krishanlal informant was informed about the incident of accident after one and half hour by telephone. PW. 19 Dr. 11 Krishanlal was not present at the time of incident and in fact the present case was one of accidental death where it was not known as to who had hit the deceased. He has further stated that PW. 11 Krishanlal informant was informed about the incident of accident after one and half hour by telephone. PW. 19 Dr. Surendra Mohan Batra has conducted postmortem on the dead body and has found 8 injuries on the person of the deceased. In his opinion, the deceased died on account of fracture of frontal and left parital bone of the head of deceased. In the medical examination report there is mention of only 7 injuries and not 8 injuries as have been shown in the postmortem report found to be on the person of the deceased. 12. PW. 11 Krishanlal -the brother of the deceased, has stated that the deceased and accused Mukh Ram and Krishanlal on the day of incident at about 5 P.M. were taking liquor on the road and quarreling with each other. After a little while accused Mukhram started a jeep and took the jeep towards Suratgarh side and thereafter took a turn and came from Ganganagar side and dashed the jeep against the deceased. In the cross-examination he has stated that the deceased used to take liquor heavily and in fact he was doing no work. This witness has also stated that who took the deceased to the hospital is not known to him. He has further stated that it is wrong to suggest that at the time of incident he was at Ganganagar and was called at the police station by a telephonic message sent to him. 13. Thus, it appears that except the statement of PW. 11 Krishanlal, no evidence is available on record to suggest that accused was responsible for the incident. Further, there is variance in the statements of PW. 11 Krishanlal and PW. 14 Dalip Singh and the learned trial Court has found the statements of PW. 11 Krishanlal not reliable in view of the statements of PW. 14 Dalip Singh, who has claimed to have taken the deceased to hospital. Had the incident been witnessed by PW. 11 Krishanlal then it was required of him to have taken the deceased to the hospital whereas PW. 11 Krishanlal as per the statement of PW. 11 Krishanlal not reliable in view of the statements of PW. 14 Dalip Singh, who has claimed to have taken the deceased to hospital. Had the incident been witnessed by PW. 11 Krishanlal then it was required of him to have taken the deceased to the hospital whereas PW. 11 Krishanlal as per the statement of PW. 14 Dalip Singh was intimated on telephone about the incident. At the spot also, nobody stated that accused respondent was responsible for the incident. PW. 14 Dalip Singh has not been declared hostile and in view of his statement the statement of PW. 11 becomes untrustworthy. 14. Another witness PW. 15 Malsingh, who is a Constable, has stated that while he was on duty in the police station and sitting at the wireless set, at about 5 PM a noise of accident having taken place was heard and he went outside. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen the incident and in the statement what he has stated is on the basis of hearsay evidence. 15. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence, led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was unable to prove its case and in fact it was not known as to who had hit the deceased. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. 16. After carefully scrutinising the prosecution evidence and perusal of the impugned Judgment of the learned trial Court, it appears that in the instant case most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. The alleged eye witness said to be the brother of the deceased has also not seen the incident and his evidence is not worth credence in view of the statement of PW . 14 Dalip Singh. One of the alleged accused Krishanlal Khot was dropped during the investigation disbelieving the initial version given by the informant PW . 11 Krishan Lal. The learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence brought on record while acquitting the accused respondent. 17. The prosecution, in this case, has miserably failed to bring home the guilt by placing on record reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent and resultantly we do not find any force in this criminal leave to appeal which deserves dismissal. 18. 17. The prosecution, in this case, has miserably failed to bring home the guilt by placing on record reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent and resultantly we do not find any force in this criminal leave to appeal which deserves dismissal. 18. In the result, the criminal leave to appeal filed against Judgment dated 110.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.59/2004 (68/2003) acquitting the respondent stands rejected.