Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 935 (RAJ)

Sunita v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-23

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioners have challenged the continuation of the criminal investigation in FIR No. 120/2004 registered at Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur for offence under Sections 147,148, 323, 304 B and 201, IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2004 the complainant, Diwan Singh, lodged a written report at Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur wherein he claimed that four years ago his daughter Meena was married to Pappu according to the Hindu rites. Immediately after the marriage, because of lack of dowry, the in-laws family started abusing his daughter. He further claimed that on 14.07.2004 because of a dowry demand of Rs. 20,000/-and of a motorcycle, Meenas husband, his brother Ramswaroop, Ramnath, Jagdish, Kalicharan, Hakim Singh, Laxaman Singh, Lakhan Singh and his father Vijay Singh and Meenas mother-in-law Badami, sister-in-law (Jethani) Prema had killed his daughter by burning her. When he was informed about the said incident, he reached the place of the in-laws, but he was assaulted by Pappu and his brothers with stones and lathis. He further alleged that Pappu and Ramnath threatened him with a gun and told him not to report the case to the police. On the basis of this report, the police registered a former FIR, FIR No. 120/2004, for the aforementioned offences. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a challan against the male members of the family namely Pappu @ Yashpal, Vijay Singh, Laxman Singh Gagdish and Ramnath and kept the investigation open against the present accused petitioners, who are the ladies in the family. Interestingly, because the family members of the deceased, namely her father, her mother, her brother and her uncle, all turned hostile during the trial, vide Judgment dated 03.05.2005 the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur acquitted the accused persons. The copies of the testimonies and the certified copy of the Judgment are available before us. Since, those accused persons who were charge-sheeted, have been acquitted by the trial Court, the present accused petitioners have moved this petition praying that the continuation of the investigation against them should be quashed. 3. Mr. The copies of the testimonies and the certified copy of the Judgment are available before us. Since, those accused persons who were charge-sheeted, have been acquitted by the trial Court, the present accused petitioners have moved this petition praying that the continuation of the investigation against them should be quashed. 3. Mr. Virendra Singh Badhwar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that since the family members of the deceased have already turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution, no benefit would be deprived by the continuation of the investigation and by filing a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused petitioners. In case, even if a trial were to commence against the present accused petitioners, the complainant and his family members would again turn hostile. Therefore, the trial would be futile. Such a trial would also amount to abuse of the process of the Court and of the law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned public prosecutor for the State, has argued that merely because the complainant and his family members have turned hostile, the Court cannot presume that they would remain hostile even in the subsequent trial, therefore, he has argued that the police should be left free to complete the investigation and to submit the charge-sheet, if any. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 03.05.2005 and the testimonies. 6. The filing of a charge-sheet, holding of a trial is not a mere formality; it is a serious business. Therefore, a trial should not commence only for the sake of initiating a prosecution specifically when the chances of the conviction are absolutely bleak from the very conception. The alleged offence had occurred on 14.07.2004. The Judgment acquitting the accused persons was pronounced on 03.05.2005. Within these ten months, the police had not investigated the case any further and had not submitted any supplementary charge-sheet against the present accused petitioners. During the course of the trial, the complainant and his family members have resiled from their statements given to the police and have turned hostile. The Judgment acquitting the accused persons was pronounced on 03.05.2005. Within these ten months, the police had not investigated the case any further and had not submitted any supplementary charge-sheet against the present accused petitioners. During the course of the trial, the complainant and his family members have resiled from their statements given to the police and have turned hostile. Even if , the police were to submit a charge-sheet against the present accused petitioners and even if the complainant and his family members were brought into the witness box, they are unlikely to support the case of the prosecution. After all they cannot afford to give contradictory statements with regard to the same incident in two different trials. Since, they have not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has slim chances of proving the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, even the second trial is bound to end in the acquittal of the present accused petitioners. The filing of the charge-sheet, the holding of the trial would, thus, be an empty formality, a fruitless exercise, a waste of the precise time of the trial Court, and an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the continuation of investigation, if any, being carried out by the Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur in FIR No. 120/2004 registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 304-B and 201, IPC.