Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2261 (RAJ)

Om Prakash @ Hakla v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-12

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—Being arising out of the judgment and order dated 11.3.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh, these two appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the judgment impugned recorded conviction of the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Secs. 302/34, 460/34 and 380 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:- u/S.302/34 IPC – Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-each and further to undergo three months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. u/S.460/34 IPC – Seven years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. u/S.380 IPC – Three years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-each and further to undergo three months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on receiving a telephonic information Shri Raghuveer Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh, arrived at Santoshi Mata Temple, near Gambhiri River Bridge, where Shri Gokulpuri (deceased), a disciple of Sanjaypuri, was lying injured. The injured was taken and admitted at General Hospital, Chittorgarh. At hospital a statement given by injured was reduced in writing and as per that, in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd June, 2003, injured was sleeping in the premises of temple in front of “Babaji Ki Dhuni”. At about 2-3 AM he woke up as a stone slab was thrown on him. He saw two unknown persons standing there who did not utter anything but stolen silver crown, gold cap and also Rs.20,000/- lying under the pillow. The incident being occurred in night of dark days, injured failed to see the faces and noticed the other identities of the two persons aforesaid. 4. On basis of this statement (Ex.P/3), a first information report was registered and investigation commenced for the offences punishable under Sections 458 and 380 Indian Penal Code. Injured Gokulpuri unfortunately died on the same day, thus, the investigation was made for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 380 and 302 Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. 5. Injured Gokulpuri unfortunately died on the same day, thus, the investigation was made for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 380 and 302 Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. 5. After hearing the accused persons, learned Sessions court framed charges against the present appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 380, 460 and 302 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the same, learned Sessions court proceeded with trial. 6. The prosecution supported its case by adducing circumstantial evidence with the aid of 19 (PW-1 to PW-19) witnesses and by getting 15 documents exhibited. To explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances available in prosecution evidence, opportunity was given to the accused persons and they termed the entire evidence false and concocted. The accused pleaded their innocence. 7. Learned trial court, after examining the evidence available on record, held the accused appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 460/34 and 380 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. 8. In appeals, the basic argument advanced by counsel for the appellants is that the instant one is a case of no evidence and the findings arrived by the trial court are not founded on the evidence sufficient to connect the accused persons with the crime in question. According to learned counsels the only circumstance on basis of which the appellants have been convicted relates to recovery of certain articles, those as a matter of fact were not identified by anyone. 9. While opposing the appeal, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution successfully framed a chain of circumstances indicating only one conclusion about involvement of the accused appellants in the crime concerned. 10. Heard counsels for the appellants, Public Prosecutor and examined the evidence available on record. 11. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.6.2003 a telephonic information was received at Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh about the incident taken place at Santoshi Mata Temple. Shri Raghuveer Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, immediately rushed to the spot of occurrence, where he found Shri Gokulpuri lying with certain injuries. Shri Gokulpuri was taken to hospital for necessary treatment and during that he made a statement (Ex.P/3) about attack on him by unknown persons with an intention to commit theft. Shri Raghuveer Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, immediately rushed to the spot of occurrence, where he found Shri Gokulpuri lying with certain injuries. Shri Gokulpuri was taken to hospital for necessary treatment and during that he made a statement (Ex.P/3) about attack on him by unknown persons with an intention to commit theft. The case of the prosecution to this extent has been supported by adducing evidence of the Investigating Officer and two independent witnesses Smt. Kanchan Bai (PW-2) and Deepak Sahu (PW-3). Shri Gokulpuri while undergoing treatment in General Hospital, Chittorgarh died on 23.6.2003 itself. After a lapse of about one month, on 22.7.2003 an informer conveyed to the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh about two persons seen at Bus Stand Rashmi going towards Bhilwara, who may be involved in murder case of Gokulpuri. A police team after making necessary entry in 'rojnamcha' proceeded for Bus Stand Rashmi. The present accused appellants on basis of the message given by police informer were arrested at Bus Stand Chittorgarh on 22.7.2003. 12. Accused Omprakash after arrest made a disclosure as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 23.7.2003 and on basis of that the investigating agency recovered a crown, a cap ('chhatra'), cash and certain documents on 25.7.2003 at 04:45 PM. Other accused Omprakash @ Ramesh also made a disclosure on the same day and on basis of that 'chhatra', a chain, a calender and cash of Rs.10,000/- were recovered. The recoveries were made in presence of attesting witnesses Akbar (PW-7) and Bherulal (PW-8). To substantiate all these events and steps taken during the course of investigation, testimony of Shri Raghuveer Singh (PW-16) and Shri Hariram (PW-17), the investigating officers, was examined. 13. Suffice to mention here that the spot of occurrence of the crime was also verified by the accused appellants. Learned trial court on basis of the evidence noticed above arrived at the conclusion that the circumstances of the verification of the spot of occurrence clubbed with the recoveries of articles at their instances is adequate to indicate their involvement in the crime in question and further to held them guilty for the charges levelled. 14. On examination of the entire record, we failed to understand as to how the trial court found the evidence available sufficient to arrive at definite conclusion about involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question. 15. 14. On examination of the entire record, we failed to understand as to how the trial court found the evidence available sufficient to arrive at definite conclusion about involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question. 15. As already stated, the incident occurred in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd June, 2003, Shri Gokulpuri (deceased) did not recognise any person who attacked on him and stolen articles from the temple, no identity of any person was also disclosed by him, as such, the investigating agency was having no clue about the persons who were involved in the crime. It is only on 22.7.2003, on basis of some information given by the informer, the investigating agency arrested the accused persons. After arrest they verified the spot of occurrence, which as a matter of fact was already in knowledge of the police. On 23.7.2003 on basis of disclosure made by the accused persons certain articles were recovered, but those were admittedly not got identified. The investigating officer Hariram (PW-17) accepted that no steps were taken to get the recovered articles identified. In absence of identification, the articles recovered could have not been connected with the articles said to be stolen from Santoshi Mata Temple in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd June, 2003. The trial court on basis of the recovered articles, which were not at all identified, also found the accused persons guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The trial court, while holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, relied upon recovery of stone which was blood stained. Suffice to mention that the stone was seized on the spot of occurrence on 23.7.2003 itself and was having blood stains of deceased. The recovery of this stone in no manner connects the accused appellants with the offence for which they have been held guilty. In totality, there is no evidence to establish the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and also the offence punishable under Section 460/34 and 380 Indian Penal Code. 16. Having considered the entire material, we are satisfied that no material evidence was available to frame a chain of circumstances indicating involvement of accused appellants in crime in question. In totality, there is no evidence to establish the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and also the offence punishable under Section 460/34 and 380 Indian Penal Code. 16. Having considered the entire material, we are satisfied that no material evidence was available to frame a chain of circumstances indicating involvement of accused appellants in crime in question. We are in agreement that the instant one is a case of no evidence, as such the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted from all the charges. 17. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded under the judgment and order dated 11.3.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.128/2003 is declared illegal, hence is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants be set at liberty from State custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.