Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1606 (RAJ)

Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan

2014-10-01

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 2. This Appeal has been filed by the complainant to challenge the validity of the judgment dated 11.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act Cases). Sri Ganganagar ( hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court for short) in Sessions Case No. 95/2012 to the extent of acquittal of the respondent No. 2 herein Arjun Ram for the offences under Sections 147, 148 341, 302/149 323 and 326/149 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 3. As per brief fact of the case, the complainant-appellant lodged a written report (Ex.P-41) at 10.30 P.M. on 3.9.2012 at Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar in which it is alleged that prior to 10 days from the date of incident, some hot discussions took place in between Mahendra S/o Brijlal and Shilendra, Sunil S/o Sultanram and his son Sandeep in connection with standing motorcycle in front of house and due to that quarrel and incident occurred on 3.9.2012 at about 6.00 P.M. when accused Mahendra Tarad, Shanker Tarad came to house of complainant and used abusive language about caste, upon which quarrel took place in between them. Thereafter, the accused party left the place after giving threat to come back to give lesson. According to the complainant-appellant all the accused came back in white colour jeep at about 7.15 P.M. with Lathis, sword and pistol. At that time Shailendra and Sultanram were sitting near bus stand. At that time, Shailendra and Sultanram tried to run sway from that place, but the accused Mahendra and Hanuman caught hold him and asked Shanker Lal to shoot him by fire arm. Upon insisting, Shanker Lal fired by country made pistol as a result of which, Shailendra received fire arm injury and fell down and rest of the accused gave lathi blows on him. On hearing noise of quarrel, the complainant and his son Sandeep Kumar nephew Sunil Kumar and his brother Sultan Ram intervened, but they were also assaulted by the accused jarty and in the incident, Sandeep Kumar, Sultanram and Sunil Kumar received serious injuries. The injured Shailendra Kumar brought to the hospital in in conscious condition where he was declared dead by the doctor. The injured Shailendra Kumar brought to the hospital in in conscious condition where he was declared dead by the doctor. The other injured persons Sandeep Kumar and Sunil Kumar nephew of complainant party were admitted in the hospital for treatment. 4. Upon receiving above complaint, a First Information Report was registered and investigation was commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the 4 persons namely, Shanker Lal, Mehendra Pal, Hanuman Prasad and Arjun Ram for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 302/149 I.P.C., under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Sections 27, 3/25(1-a) of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court commenced trial and after framing the charges finally acquitted the respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram from the charges levelled against him and convicted Shanker Lal, Mahendra Pal and Hanuman Prasad for the alleged offences. 5. In the present appeal filed by the complainant Ramswaroop, the complainant is challenging the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 7.2013 to the extent of acquittal of Arjun Ram on various grounds. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued at there is ample evidence on record to prove participation of respondent No. 2 herein in the accident, therefore, he was to be convicted along with the other accused for same offences, but the learned Trial Court has committed gross error to acquit the respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram for the offences committed by him along with other accused persons inspite of the fact that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubts. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that to prove the prosecution case, the statements of 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded including eye witnesses and 61 documents were exhibited in trial upon which prosecution proved its case. The basic argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the finding given by the learned Trial Court with regard to acquittal of respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram are totally erroneous because the fact of recovery of Lathi from respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram was proved, so also as per Section 149 I.P.C. when respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram participated in the incident then obviously, he was to be convicted for the allegation of participation in the crime but learned Trial Court committed a gross error in acquitting the accused-respondent No. 2 from the charges levelled against him in the case. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of prosecution in right perspective for the purpose of conviction against him but upon looking the record, there is ample evidence on record to prove the fact of participation of accused respondent No. 2 in the incident, therefore, on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed to the extent of acquittal of respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has discussed the entire prosecution including the statement of PW-17 Sandeep Kumar and PW-13 Sahi Ram, who were injured and PW-15 Ramswaroop (complainant-appellant herein) himself and gave clear cut finding that presence of respondent No. 2 Arjun Ramis doubtful. Further, in Para No. 29 of the judgment there is clear cut finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case against Arjun Ram, therefore, on interference is called for in the judgment impugned for acquittal of the respondent No. 2. 9. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused and assess the entire evidence, so also, the finding given by the learned Trial Court with regard to participation of respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram. The learned Trial Court thoroughly examined the statement of injured eye witnesses PW-17 Sandeep Kumar and gave finding that presence of Arjun Ram is doubtful because there is no specific allegation for inflicting any injury by him to the deceased similarly, the learned Trial Court discredited the evidence of recovery of Lathi from Arjun Lal on the ground that no independent witness was examined to prove the fact of recovery of Lathi. It is also observed that in the report (Ex.P-26) no blood was found upon the lathi recovered from accused Arjun Ram. The learned Trial Court gave specific finding that none of the independent witnesses proved the fact that Lathi was recovered from Arjun Ram, so also, in the report of FSL (Ex.P-56) no human blood was found. Meaning thereby, as per the finding given by the learned Trial Court the prosecution has failed to prove participation and presence of Arjun Ram at the place of occurrence. 10. Meaning thereby, as per the finding given by the learned Trial Court the prosecution has failed to prove participation and presence of Arjun Ram at the place of occurrence. 10. The learned Trial Court gave finding that in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-41), there is no allegation against Arjun Ram for inflicting any injury to the deceased Shailendra, Sandeep Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Sultanram and in the statement of complainant PW-15 Ramswaroop it is nowhere said by him in the examination-in-chief that any injury was inflicted by Arjun Ram by Lathi to any of the injured witnesses. Meaning thereby, if there is no evidence on record with regard to participation of accused Arjun Ram and recovery of Lathi is doubtful then obviously, in our view, the finding given by the learned Trial Court with regard to acquittal of respondent No. 2. Arjun Ram does not require any interference because there is no perversity or illegality in the finding given by the learned Trial Court for acquittal of respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram.In view of the above, this appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent No. 2 Arjun Ram by the learned Trial Court is hereby dismissedAppeal dismissed. *******