Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 280 (RAJ)

Gokal Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby the petitioner's revision filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division), Balotra taking cognizance for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. in relation to F.I.R. No. 31/2002 P.S. Kalyanpur has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the petitioner committed the theft of the complainant's jeep. He submits that the first information report has been filed after delay of three days. He submits that the jeep had met with an accident, and therefore, the complainant filed the false belated first information report alleging theft for the purpose of saving himself from the prosecution in relation to the accident. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation no witness has alleged that the petitioner had committed or participated in the alleged theft. He contends that at the highest, the evidence of the prosecution regarding the alleged theft is against Budha Ram He has specifically referred to the statements of Arjun Das and Ghewar Ram recorded during investigation who have stated that they had seen Budha Ram driving the jeep in question. Learned counsel submits that thereafter in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Arjun Das has tried to improve from his earlier testimony and has alleged that the petitioner was driving the jeep but the said fact was obviously an improvement. He, therefore, submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for facing trial should be quashed. 3. Per contra, Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the learned Magistrate by a well reasoned order has held that there was sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submits that the order taking cognizance has also been affirmed in revision, and therefore, the instant miscellaneous petition is nothing but a second revision on the same facts. He further urges that Arjun Das in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that Gokal Ram was driving the jeep. He further submits that the order taking cognizance has also been affirmed in revision, and therefore, the instant miscellaneous petition is nothing but a second revision on the same facts. He further urges that Arjun Das in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that Gokal Ram was driving the jeep. He has alleged that when the witnesses has specifically stated that while he was sitting at his hotel at about 11'O clock he saw that Gokal Ram was driving the jeep and Budha Ram was sitting nearby. He, therefore, prays that the there is sufficient material on record to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has committed theft. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the orders impugned and the record. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that there is no witness of the prosecution who has actually seen the incident of theft of the jeep committed by the petitioner. The first information report has been filed after a delay of three days and thereafter, during the course of investigation also no witness alleged that he saw the petitioner stealing or driving the vehicle or sitting in the same. Arjun Das in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has alleged that he had seen the petitioner driving the vehicle and Budha Ram was sitting in the vehicle on 13.6.2002 at about 11'O clock. His testimony is contradictory to the statement of Pira Ram who has stated that in the evening he saw Budha Ram driving the vehicle. Arjun Das was examined twice during investigation and he has not alleged in both of the statements regarding having seen the accused-petitioner is possession of the stolen vehicle. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material whatsoever to link or connect the petitioner with the alleged theft of complainant's vehicle. The police rightly arrived at a conclusion after investigation that the petitioner had not committed the offence of theft of the jeep. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. has been affirmed in revision are abuse of the process of the Court. 5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. has been affirmed in revision are abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition succeeds and the orders impugned dated 12.4.2006 of the learned Magistrate and the order dated 4.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra are quashed to the extent of the petitioner. Record be sent back.Petition allowed. *******