Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 504 (RAJ)

Krishna v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-04

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this criminal revision is to the judgment dated 31st May, 2000 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2), Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar, whereby the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the accused respondents no. 2 and 3 of the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused persons namely Deena @ Deen Dayal and Rajbala @ Bala associated with other persons are alleged to have assaulted upon Suresh with axe, Fawli, Plasi, Jaily, Kula and Khurpa. It is alleged that when PW-8 Smt. Krishna, the mother of the injured, came to rescue him, she was also given beating by hands and fists. This incident was witnessed by Chander and Ram Ji Lal. The complainant Smt. Krishna lodged the FIR and the police commenced the investigation. 3. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan Ex.P 2, collected blood smeared soil from the place of occurrence vide Memo Ex. P 3, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., got the injured medically examined and after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused persons. 4. Both the accused persons namely Deena @ Deen Dayal and Rajbala @ Bala were indicted for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated the prosecution story to be untrue and submitted that they were falsely implicated. The learned trial court, after completion of trial, acquitted the accused persons of the alleged charges as indicated here-in-above. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the accused non petitioners no. 2 and 3 as also learned PP appearing for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the learned trial court did not consider the statements of PW-8 Smt. Krishna, who was the eye witness of the case. Merely on the ground of non examination of the investigating officer and some witnesses having turned hostile, the learned trial court acquitted the accused non petitioners. There is no reason to abandon the testimony of PW-8 Smt. Krishna. Merely on the ground of non examination of the investigating officer and some witnesses having turned hostile, the learned trial court acquitted the accused non petitioners. There is no reason to abandon the testimony of PW-8 Smt. Krishna. Her statements have been duly corroborated by the medical evidence, hence the judgment of the learned trial court be set-aside and the accused non petitioners no. 2 and 3 be convicted for the alleged offences. 7. Learned PP appearing for the State as also the learned counsel for the non petitioners no. 2 and 3 defended the impugned judgment and stated the same to be just and proper, which warranted no interference. 8. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that PW-1 Mahipal, PW-3 Ramji Lal, PW-4 Chander and PW-6 Sheoram are said to be the eye witnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution story. PW-2 Ram Swaroop has simply stated that police collected the soil in his presence and prepared the memo Ex. P-3, which bears his signatures. PW-5 Sumer Singh is a witness who proved the arrest of accused Deena. Albeit, the site plan Ex. P-2 is said to have been prepared by the police persons and the subject of the offences viz. Fawli etc. are said to have been recovered at the instance of accused persons in his presence, but this witness has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. PW-9 Rajveer also does not support the prosecution story. PW-10 Shri Chander's statements are of no avail to the prosecution and PW-11 Dr. M.K. Singhal is the witness, who took the X-ray of the injuries of injured Suresh in his presence and found fracture on left parieto temporal region. Now there is left only one witness PW-8 Smt. Krishna, who registered the case with police. 9. PW-8 Smt. Krishna un-disputably is the mother of the injured Suresh. She has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and her statements therein have reflected that both the parties were on inimical terms on account of there being a dispute about the property. The learned trial court analyzed her evidence in detail and after proper appreciation found the presence of this witness on the spot at the time of occurrence doubtful. She has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and her statements therein have reflected that both the parties were on inimical terms on account of there being a dispute about the property. The learned trial court analyzed her evidence in detail and after proper appreciation found the presence of this witness on the spot at the time of occurrence doubtful. It is very relevant to record that the injured himself and the investigating officer of the case have not been examined by the prosecution in this case. Learned counsel reiterated during his arguments that the statements of PW-8 Smt. Krishna stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence which proves the injuries on the person of injured Suresh caused by the accused non petitioners no. 2 and 3, but the veracity of the statements of Smt. Krishna was questioned now and then in the cross-examination and her statements are not found to be consistent. I agree with the observation of the learned trial court that the presence of PW-8 Smt. Krishna on the place of occurrence was doubtful. No accused can be convicted merely on the basis of medical examination report, which simply proves the injuries found on the person of the injured. Unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that these injuries were caused by the accused persons and their statements in this regard are found to be trustworthy, the accused or accused persons cannot be convicted. 10. In the instant case, neither injured Suresh has been examined by the prosecution nor the investigating officer has appeared in evidence. Since no eye witness has supported the prosecution story nor other witnesses have supported the recovery of weapons and further in the absence of the statements of the injured and investigating officer, merely on the basis of the testimony of PW-8 Smt. Krishna, who is found to be interested witness, the accused non petitioner no. 2 and 3 cannot be convicted of the alleged offences. Learned trial court having carefully appreciated the prosecution evidence in its right perspective has rightly arrived at a finding that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment seems to be just and proper, based on cogent reasoning and the same suffers from no infirmity. Learned trial court having carefully appreciated the prosecution evidence in its right perspective has rightly arrived at a finding that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment seems to be just and proper, based on cogent reasoning and the same suffers from no infirmity. I am in consonance with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial court and to my view too, the impugned judgment warrants no intervention. 11. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******