Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2037 (RAJ)

Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2009-09-17

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 02.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 41/2009, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the trial Court as also the record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/first informant lodged a report, being FIR No. 87 dated 12.8.2005 with the Police Station, Mathili Rathan, district Sri Ganganagar. The police investigated the matter and recorded the statements of petitioner/first informant, Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Moola Ram, Ram Chandra etc., who supported the case of the first informant, the petitioner herein. However, the police also recorded the statements of Kewal Ram, Heera Lai, Sheo Prakash, Shishpal etc. and submitted the negative final report before the trial Court. The petitioner/first informant filed a protest petition and in support of the protest petition, got himself examined as CW 1 under Section 200 of the Code and produced the witnesses CW 2 Ram Chandra, CW 3 Vimla, CW 4 Manohar Lai, CW 5 Moola Ram and CW 6 Sheo Prakash and their statements have been recorded by the trial Court on oath under Section 202 of the Code. By the order dated 15.11.2008, the trial Court accepted the final report and dismissed the protest petition, against which the petitioner/first informant preferred a revision petition but the Revisional Court did not interfere with the order of the trial Court. By the order dated 15.11.2008, the trial Court accepted the final report and dismissed the protest petition, against which the petitioner/first informant preferred a revision petition but the Revisional Court did not interfere with the order of the trial Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/first informant that right from the date of lodging the First Information Report, the witnesses therein have supported the case of the petitioner/first informant; however for the reasons best known to the police, the police recorded the statements of some of the witnesses noticed above, who have no concern with the occurrence in question, rather statement of such witnesses has no relevance to the occurrence as alleged by the first informant and on the basis of statement of such witnesses, the police submitted the negative final report, whereas from the statement of the first informant and other witnesses, CW 1 to CW 6 recorded under Section 161 of the Code as well as on oath before trial Court, prima facie there is a ground to proceed against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 365, 382, 504, 452, IPC etc. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that the witnesses, on whose statement police relied upon, did not hear hue and cry and, therefore, had there been the occurrence as stated by the first informant, then there should have been some hue and cry, which they did not hear and in the village also. Such witnesses did not hear about the occurrence, as alleged from the villagers. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents submitted that had the complainant party been inflicted the slaps and fist-blows then there should have been some external injuries, whereas there is no medical evidence regarding suffering of the external injuries by Ram Chandra or the first informant and, therefore, the police has rightly filed the negative final report. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. On close scrutiny of the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses Krishan Lai, Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Moola Ram, Ram Chandra, Shiv Prakash etc. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. On close scrutiny of the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses Krishan Lai, Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Moola Ram, Ram Chandra, Shiv Prakash etc. recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code during the investigation, as also the statements of these witnesses recorded by the trial Court under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, prima facie there is the evidence that the accused-respondents came in a jeep, entered into the house of the petitioner/first informant and started giving slaps and fist-blows to witness Ram Chandra and abused him, though the specific words of abuse have not been mentioned; thereafter the other witnesses tried to rescue Ram Chandra, however they could not succeed and ultimately Ram Chandra was kidnapped in the jeep and he was ultimately released from the detention, as per the statement of Ram Chandra, after few days. The motive behind kidnapping Ram Chandra, as stated by the witnesses, is that Ram Chandra had filed a case before the Labour Court for claiming the wages against accused Darshan Singh etc. and the accused-respondents wanted to get the matter compromised, for which the claimant in the Labour Court, viz. Ram Chandra, did not agree and, therefore, Ram Chandra was said to have been kidnapped. 7. So far as the statements of other witnesses are concerned, witness Kewal Ram is said to be neighbour of the first informant, who has stated that there had not been any occurrence and had there been such an occurrence then there would have been some hue and cry, which he did not hear. The other witness Heera Lal also made the similar statement and stated that had there been an assault on the complainant and his son Ram Chandra then there should have been some hue and cry and the neighbours would have heard such hue and cry but they did not hear so. Some of the witnesses stated that Ram Chandra stayed at the house of his brother-in-law Moola Ram at his own. Some of the witnesses stated that Ram Chandra stayed at the house of his brother-in-law Moola Ram at his own. At any rate, these are not the witnesses either the neighbourers of Moola Ram and may be villagers, but Moola Ram, in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code as also in his statement recorded by the trial Court under Section 202 of the Code, has categorically stated that at about 7:00 PM on the date of the occurrence, he went to the house of the first informant Krishan Lal and there he found the accused-respondents Darshan Singh and Labh Singh, the sons of Dayal Singh, and Bhola Singh S/o Nikka Singh in a jeep; they got down from the jeep, the other persons remained in the jeep and these three persons went in-side the house of Krishan Lal and started assaulting Ram Chandra and i thereafter Ram Chandra was forcibly taken away in the jeep; Shishpal and Krishan Lal tried to rescue but they could not succeed and ultimately Ram Chandra was kidnapped in the jeep. At the time of kidnapping Ram Chandra, they stated that Ram Chandra has instituted the case against them in the Labour Court and he will have to compromise the case else his dead body would be found. Similar are the statements of Krishan Lal, Ram Chandra, Manohar Lai, Shishupal etc. 8. Ram Chandra is the victim of the occurrence and he has stated that he was detained by the accused-respondents in their house for about 10 to 12 days and got his signatures on certain papers against his wishes. He also stated that in the case instituted by him against accused-respondent Darshan Singh, he was pressurised to compromise the matter. 9. At any rate, the witnesses who are connected with the occurrence and even the independent witness like Moola Ram, have categorically supported the case of the complainant. The police, despite the evidence, preferred to record the statements of some of the witnesses who are not directly connected with the occurrence and their statements, by and large, are on the assumptions that had there been such an occurrence then there would have been some hue and cry. It is not necessary that in the occurrence, with whom a person is not concerned, would hear the hue and cry when the occurrence takes place. It is not necessary that in the occurrence, with whom a person is not concerned, would hear the hue and cry when the occurrence takes place. Some of the witnesses stated that they did not hear in the village that such an occurrence has taken place. In this view of the matter, both the courts below fell in error in not proceeding against the accused-respondents and accepting the final report and dismissing the protest petition. Therefore, in my view, the impugned orders obviously result in serious injustice and, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court for further inquiry into the protest petition/complaint filed by the petitioner/first informant. 10. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the trial Court as also the order dated 02.3.2009 passed by the Revisional Court affirming the order of the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to make further inquiry into the protest petition/complaint and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.Petition Allowed. *******