Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1862 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. The State of Rajasthan

2008-08-06

C.M.TOTLA, PRAKASH TATIA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant Ram Lal to challenge the judgment of the acquittal of respondent Balu Gurjar dated 10.1.2008 by which the learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh camp Begun, in Sessions Case No.44/06, acquitted respondent-accused for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. 2. As per the prosecution, a written report Ex.P.1 was submitted by the complainant-petitioner in the Police Station, Bhaisroadgarh on 4.2.2006 that since 1.2.2006 complainant's son Pukh Raj was not found after he went with cattle to the forest for grazing. From 1.2.2006 to 4.2.2006, the complainant with other relatives and villagers tried to search his son Pukh Raj and ultimately, on 4.2.2006 in the evening, he along with his family members Tulsi Ram, Ratan Lal, Bheru Lal, Kalu, Laxman Singh etc. found Pukh Raj lying dead in the forest near the wall of Bandar Bhuta Pedok. Pukh Raj had several injuries on his body and blood was oozing out from the mouth and nose. Near the body of deceased Pukh Raj, one kulhari was found lying. Near the body, pair of chappal was also found. In this written report, the complainant stated that one Narayan informed that respondent-Balu killed the victim Pukh Raj by strangulation and he gave beating to the victim Pukh Raj by Kulhari. Narayan stated that he tried to intervene but the accused-Balu did not stop and gave threat to Narayan also that he may kill Narayan also. Because of this fear, he did not tell this fact to any body. Before this incident, accused Balu quarreled with Pukh Raj with filthy language and respondent-Balu was saying that Pukh Raj gave beating to him in the period of Navratri. On this report, FIR No.12/2006 for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC was registered. 3. It will be worthwhile to mention here that for this very incident, a report was submitted on 3.2.2006 by one Bheru Lal at 2.15 a.m., upon which FIR No.5/2006 under Section 174, Cr.P.C. was registered. Before FIR No.12/2006 dated 4.2.2006 was lodged, the investigation already started in FIR No.5/2006 dated 3.2.2006 and sample soil and blood stained soil and clothes of the deceased Pukh Raj were also seized and even deceased Pukh Raj's post-mortem was also conducted on 3.2.2006. 4. Before FIR No.12/2006 dated 4.2.2006 was lodged, the investigation already started in FIR No.5/2006 dated 3.2.2006 and sample soil and blood stained soil and clothes of the deceased Pukh Raj were also seized and even deceased Pukh Raj's post-mortem was also conducted on 3.2.2006. 4. In the trial court, charge for offence under Section 302 and 201, IPC was framed and prosecution produced 16 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. 5. The trial court rejected the evidence of material witness PW-4 Narayan as well as evidence of PW-13 Hem Raj. The trial court observed that according to PW-4 Narayan, he saw the incident itself but he did not tell about this incident to any of the persons till the accused was arrested. He told about this incident to the complainant because of the reason that by that time, the accused Balu was arrested by the police and, therefore, there was no fear for him. The trial court found that the statement of the witness was recorded on 4.2.2006 by the police, whereas the accused was arrested on 5.2.2006. The conduct of PW-4 Narayan was found sufficient for discarding his evidence and the trial court reached to the conclusion that he can give any statement because of fear and pressure. PW-4 Narayan, in his cross-examination, stated that the complainant Ram Lal (PW-1) and the prosecution witness Tulsi Ram (PW-2) gave him threat that he should state in the court what he has stated before them, otherwise, he (the witness Narayan) will be killed. His remaining silent for such a long period of four days and not telling the incident to any body coupled with his this statement and other serious contradictions and infirmities in the statement of Narayan, the trial court rightly discarded the evidence of Narayan. The other prosecution witness PW-13 Hem Raj is witness only of the fact that he went in the forest with his goats and he found there Narayan and Balu, who were sitting there. He stated that thereafter he left the place and next day, he heard that Pukh Raj has been murdered. The other prosecution witness PW-13 Hem Raj is witness only of the fact that he went in the forest with his goats and he found there Narayan and Balu, who were sitting there. He stated that thereafter he left the place and next day, he heard that Pukh Raj has been murdered. The statement of PW-13, if is accepted then he came to know about death of Pukh Raj on the next day, whereas according to the complainant, the complainant was searching his son Pukh Raj and submitted report to the police only on 4.2.2006,i.e. after two days from the date when the fact of death of Pukh Raj became known. The witness PW-1 Ram Lal is not the eye-witness and as per the statement of PW-1 Ram Lal, he had no knowledge about his son before 4.2.2006. He submitted report on 4.2.2006 to the police and before that on 2.2.2006, according to him, the body was found and on 3.2.2006 the post-mortem was conducted on 3.2.2006 and funeral of the deceased Pukh Raj was attended by almost the entire village and some other persons also came from other villages. In cross-examination, he further stated that at the time of last rites of Pukh Raj, they came to know that Pukh Raj was killed by respondent-accused Balu, but he admitted that he did not report the matter to the police on that day. PW-2 Tulsi Ram stated that he also went to search Pukh Raj son of the complainant but they could not find him on 2.2.2006, then they went with other persons to the nearby forest to search Pukh Raj and the did not find Pukh Raj till 8 p.m. and thereafter, they found the body of Pukh Raj lying near the wall who had injuries. They informed Up-Pradhan Kishan Lal and who informed the police and the police reached on the spot and the postmortem was conducted and the Kulhari was lying there near the body. Contradicting statement of complainant PW-1 Ram Lal, PW-2 Tulsi Ram, in his cross-examination, stated that at the time of funeral of deceased Pukh Raj, they had no knowledge that accused Balu killed Pukh Raj, however, he admitted that almost the entire village was present at the time of funeral of Pukh Raj. He is also not witness to the incident. 6. In totality, there is no evidence connecting respondent-Balu with the crime. He is also not witness to the incident. 6. In totality, there is no evidence connecting respondent-Balu with the crime. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence the revision petition is dismissed.Revision Dismissed *******