Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2792 (RAJ)

Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - Amar Singh challenging the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banswara, whereby, he has accepted the F.R. No. 7/2006 arising out the F.I.R. No. 19/2006, registered at Police Station Danpur. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are set out here-in-below.The petitioner filed a report at the Police Station Danpur on 4.12.2004 alleging inter ilia that his son Yashpal Singh had gone to Banswara Court for attending the date of hearing along with accused persons Dilip, Mahesh, Ramesh, Badri, Rakiya, Kailash and Kanesh, who also accompanied him. In the evening, when he came back, at that time, Kalu and Chandra Singh took away Yashpal Singh to the English Liquor Shop, were, Dilip and Mahesh made Yashpal Singh to take liquor and thereafter took him to the 'Dhaba' of one Pankaj Bhandari, where all the persons assaulted Yashpal Singh and also caused injuries to the owner the Dhaba'. Thereafter, the brother of Yashpal Singh namely Govind Singh requested them that he should be permitted to take away Yashpal Singh with him, on which, Dilip told that they will leave Yashpal Singh at his house. But, Yashpal Singh did not return back, on which, a search was made. On 4.12.2004. the complainant came to know that dead body of Yashpal Singh had been found in the well at the Ghodi Tejpur Way. A suspicion was expressed that Yashpal Singh had been done away by these accused persons. 3. A complaint with these allegations was filed by Amar Singh in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on 23.1.2006, whereupon, the matter was forwarded to the Police Station, Danpur for investigation under Section 156 Cr. P.C., where, F.I.R. No. 19/2006 was registered and investigation was commenced. 4. 3. A complaint with these allegations was filed by Amar Singh in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on 23.1.2006, whereupon, the matter was forwarded to the Police Station, Danpur for investigation under Section 156 Cr. P.C., where, F.I.R. No. 19/2006 was registered and investigation was commenced. 4. The police after conclusion of the investigation filed a FR in the matter and on the FR being filed by the police, notices were issued to the complainant- petitioner, who filed a protest petition against the FR and got his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of Govind Singh, Prabhat Singh and Man Singh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has proceeded to accept the FR and rejected the protest petition, Thus, the complainant-petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the order impugned dated 19.10.2006 and seeking a direction to be issued to the trial Court for proceeding against the accused- respondents. 5. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the stage when the cognizance of an offence is being considered, a mere suspicion is sufficient for proceeding against the persons suspected to have committed the offence. He submits that since there is ample material available on the record of the case to show that the respondents herein had assaulted the deceased soon before his death, therefore, there was sufficient material on the record of the case for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned rejecting the protest petition field by the petitioner and accepting the FR given by the police is illegal. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents submit that there was no material on the record of the case to show that the respondents were responsible for committing the murder of the Yashpal Singh and thus in absence of any prima facie evidence or material on the record of the case to show that the respondents were even remotely connected with the alleged crime, it has been submitted that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in accepting the FR given by the police in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the incident took place on 2.12.2004. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the incident took place on 2.12.2004. The proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated but the complainant did not make any protest during the course of these proceedings. It is nearly one year and two months of the alleged occurrence that the complaint was filed against the accused-respondents and the police thoroughly investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no material on the record of the case to show that (i) the death of Yashpal Singh was homicidal (ii) the respondents were not responsible for the death of Yashpal Singh. Thus, it is prayed that the revision petition being without any force deserves to be rejected. 8. In opinion of this Court, a glaring feature of this case is that the incident took place on 2.12.2004. Initially, the petitioner filed an application under Section 174 Cr.P.C. at the Police Station Danpur, in which, he did not make any allegation against the accused-respondents though he has expressed suspicion in relation to the death of his son. Thereafter, he waited for a period of one year and two months before filing the present complaint on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered and the police investigated the matter. The police during the course of the investigation has thoroughly investigated the matter and found that there was no evidence on the record of the case to show that the respondents were responsible for assaulting the deceased. The post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted in the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and in the post mortem, no injury was found to exist on the body of the deceased. It was also found that had the allegation of assault been genuine, then, there was no reason for the petitioner not to have given out the names of the alleged assailants when he filed.the initial report regarding the death of his son. 9. On perusal of the record of the case, it becomes apparent that there is no reliable material available on the record of the case to show even prima facie that the respondents herein had committed the murder of Yashapal Singh. No motive has been attributed by the petitioner even in his belated complaint filed in the year 2006 as to why the respondents intended to do away with Yashpal Singh. No motive has been attributed by the petitioner even in his belated complaint filed in the year 2006 as to why the respondents intended to do away with Yashpal Singh. The 'Dhaba' owner Pankaj Bhandari has not corroborated the allegation of the complainant that the respondents assaulted the deceased. That apart, the most important feature of the matter is that Govind Singh, the real brother of the deceased is alleged to have seen the assault being made on his brother but he neither intervened nor tried to save his brother. That apart, if Govind Singh had seen the assault taking place on 2.12.2004 then he there was no reason for this fact not having been mentioned in the first report for this fact not having been mentioned in the first report filed by Amar Singh on 4.12.2004 and therefore there is no justification for not taking steps in this regard for a period of one year and two months. Apart from this, a perusal of the Final Report shows that the cause of the death of Yashpal Singh as per the P.M.R. has been found to be drowning and not as a result of injuries. Thus, the case of the complainant that the respondents first assaulted the deceased and then threw him in the well is not substantiated by the P.M.R. as well. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed on error in accepting the FR given by the police and in rejecting the protest petition filed by the complainant - petitioner.Accordingly, the revision petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******