Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2017 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sardara

2005-08-02

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondents recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1987 dated 28.11.1991 acquitting the accused-respondents for the offence under Secs. 147/148, 353/149, 332/149, 395 and 427 IPC. 2. The facts in brief, as per Rojnamcha Ex. 12 is to the effect that on the information received SHO Naresh Kumar alongwith police personnel and PW 2 Mustakim had gone to the house of accused Sardariya at village Chausala, who as report Ex.P/17 was absconding. They reached at the house of Sardariya at 6.30 PM and found him in the verandah of the house, however, on inquiry being made first of all his presence was denied but when the SHO wanted to search for him in the house, Sukhla gave a signal and Sardariya, Raughnath, Madanlal, Radhakishan, Boduram, Chhittar, Lala, Gopal, Hazari, Moola, Bhagwan, Hiralal, wife and daughter of Sardara, Ganesh and son - in-law of Sardara having lathis and axes in their hand came to kill them. They tried to save themselves but as the accused persons were more in number they could not cope with them and were not allow search the place. First of all, accused Raughnath gave a lathi blow on the head of the SHO which resulted in fall of him on the ground and then accused Radhakishan gave an axe blow on his left hand and thereafter all gave him beatings by lathies.The accused tried to snatch the official revolver of the SHO but they could not, however, they could be able to snatch the revolver case including 11 cartridges and belt and same were taken away by Chhittar, Moola and Radhakishan. A Ricoh wrist watch was also snatched and taken away by accused Sardariya. On shoutings being made by PW 1 SHO Naresh Kumar, Bhanwarlal PW 7, Bhuraram PW 9, Khemaram PW 6, reached there and on seeing them the accused persons, deeming it that SHO Naresh Kumar died, fled away from there. It is further stated in Ex.P/12 that thereafter the villagers brought SHO Naresh Kumar to the bus - stand Chausala in a cart and thereafter from there to Nawa in a truck. It was also stated that had the villagers not reached there, SHO Naresh Kumar would have been killed. It is further stated in Ex.P/12 that thereafter the villagers brought SHO Naresh Kumar to the bus - stand Chausala in a cart and thereafter from there to Nawa in a truck. It was also stated that had the villagers not reached there, SHO Naresh Kumar would have been killed. Due to beatings, he sustained injuries on his arm, shoulders, thigh and fet so many other places on the body. Mustakim also sustained injuries on his waist, Nanu Khan in his palm of right hand and Rajuram on his left hand & right and left legs. It is also stated that the accused persons broke glasses of jeep by throwing stones and damaged the private jeep. The accused persons including men and women were about 20 to 25 in number. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report Ex.P/12 First Information Report (Ex.P/13) was chalked out at Police Station Nawa and investigation started. 4. During investigation, PW 16 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad examined SHO Naresh Kumar for his injuries and prepared report Ex.R/14, according to which he received 7 injuries. Out of those injuries, Injury No.'2 was caused by sharp edged weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by blunt weapons, the duration thereof was 12 hrs. As per report Ex.P/35, the injury No. 4 of Naresh Kumar was grievous. On that very day PW 16 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad also examined PW 2 Mustakim and Rajuram and prepared their injury reports Ex.P/18 & P/19. As per report Ex.P/18, PW 2 Mustakim had received one injury by blunt weapon and as per report Ex.P/19 Rajuram had sustained no injury. Thereafter, necessary memos were prepared, accused were arrested and recoveries were made. 5. After completion of investigation in respect of Jhat incident which took place on 13.1.1986 at 6.30 PM at Village Chausala, Tehsil Nawa, the police submitted challan under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 427, 353, 332, 307, 395 and 392 IPC against Sardara, Chhittar, Gopal, Rughnathiya, Radhakishan, Lalaram, Boduram, Madanlal, Ganeshram, Heeraial, Bhagwanaram, Hajariram and Mularam. After committal, it came before learned Sessions Judge, Merta, who framed the charges against the accused persons. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 17 witnesses and tendered large number of documents in evidence. 147, 148, 149, 427, 353, 332, 307, 395 and 392 IPC against Sardara, Chhittar, Gopal, Rughnathiya, Radhakishan, Lalaram, Boduram, Madanlal, Ganeshram, Heeraial, Bhagwanaram, Hajariram and Mularam. After committal, it came before learned Sessions Judge, Merta, who framed the charges against the accused persons. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 17 witnesses and tendered large number of documents in evidence. In defence, the accused denied the charges and claimed trial.After close of the prosecution evidence, in the1 statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. most of the accused-Appellants took the plea of alibi and stated that the matter relates to party politics and they have been falsely implicated in the case. 6. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide its judgment dated 28.11.1991 finding that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt acquitted the accused-respondents giving them benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal. 7. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents and carefully scrutinised the material available on record. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case accused persons gave beatings to the police persons when they had gone to conduct investigation in some case and arrest the accused who were absconding. He further submitted that in this case statements of 17 witnesses were recorded but it does not appear that offence under Section 385 IPC has been made out against the accused persons. He also submitted that the appeal of the State should be accepted and accused should be convicted. In the last, it was submitted that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the judgment and order of acquittal suffers from legal infirmity which is required to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1986 and more than 20 years have passed since the incident in which several ladies were also given beatings by the police party. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 1986 and more than 20 years have passed since the incident in which several ladies were also given beatings by the police party. He further submitted that there is one injury on Metacarpal and the other on left hand of PW 1 Naresh Babu and regarding those injuries there is no specific evidence available on record and as such in the absence of examination of injuries by the radiologist and in absence of X-ray and medical evidence same remains to be simple in nature. Learned counsel took me through various statements and submitted that the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for recording the order of acquittal in favour of the accused persons. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made before me. 11. It is a case in which the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1986, therefore, this aspect also requires consideration. The accused respondents are 13 in number and most of them by now must have attained 60 years of age or more. It further appears from perusal of the statements of witnesses that both the sides sustained injuries in the incident. The law which is almost settled on the point is that where an appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal, the Court while considering the matter should be slow unless some grave mistake or perversity is pointed out in the judgment, in the instant case, nothing of that so has been pointed out. The law is also settled on the point that even if two views are possible in relation to appreciation of evidence, then the view which supports the accused persons should be adopted. In my view, the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and by the impugned judgment rightly acquitted the accused respondents because it was a mob at the time of incident in the village and the evidence led could not establish the charges levelled against the accused respondents. In my view, the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record and by the impugned judgment rightly acquitted the accused respondents because it was a mob at the time of incident in the village and the evidence led could not establish the charges levelled against the accused respondents. Therefore, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the incident took place in the year 1986 and more than 20 years have passed, I do not find it proper to take a view different than the one which has been taken by the learned Trial Court. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the State, which deserves to be dismissed after confirming the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1987. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******