Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1638 (RAJ)

Parvati Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-10-09

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant Smt. Parvati Devi W/o Late Shri Bahadur Singh against the judgment dated 6.5.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court for short) in Sessions Case No. 17/2009 (9/2005) (24/2005) whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148 and 302/149 I.P.C. 3. As per the brief facts upon the written report (Ex.P-2) filed by PW-2 Bahadur Singh at Police Station Jahajpur on 5.1.2004 at about 9.30 A.M. an F.I.R. was registered against the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 in which it was alleged that in the previous evening at about 8.00 P.M. when complainant reached to his house, he was informed by PW-3 Pewa that deceased Mahendra was forcibly taken away by Ratan Lal, Soraj, Sukhpal, Sita Ram and Satyanarayan from the way and took him in their house and inflicted serious injuries. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that in the morning upon search Mahendra was not found. Upon that written report, the S.H.O., Police Station Jahajpur registered an F.I.R. (Ex.P-3) under Sections 342, 365, 143, 323/149 I.P.C. and after registration of F.I.R. a telephonic information was received from one Sita Ram that one dead body is lying in the field at Motipura village. Upon receiving aforesaid information, the police party went along with complainant Bahadur Singh at the place where the dead body is lying and found that said body was of Mahendra. 4. After usual investigation, the Investigating Officer of Police Station Jahajpur filed charge-sheet against Shivraj @ Soraj, Sukhpal, Ratanlal and Satyanarayan in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jahajpur and another challan was filed against accused Sita Ram (minor) before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer. 5. After filing challan, the case was committed to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara where trial took place. 6. The learned Trial Court after recording statement of 19 prosecution witnesses recorded statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, an opportunity was granted to the accused respondents to lead their evidence. 5. After filing challan, the case was committed to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara where trial took place. 6. The learned Trial Court after recording statement of 19 prosecution witnesses recorded statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, an opportunity was granted to the accused respondents to lead their evidence. The statement of two defence witnesses being DW-1 Ratan Lal and DW-2 Khemraj were recorded and in all 46 documents were exhibited from the side of prosecution and 34 documents were exhibited from the side of defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after completing the trial heard final arguments and ultimately acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them for committing offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 6.5.2014. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant is challenging the judgment of acquittal on the ground that as per the documentary evidence the dispute regarding land was going on since 1976 and a number of cases are registered against the complainant party and accused party. Therefore, obviously, there was intention to kill deceased Mahendra but this fact is completely ignored by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondents and, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per the statements of PW-3 Pewa, PW-4 Mathura and PW-5 Ranjeet who were eyewitnesses of the case, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court wrongly disbelieved the testimony of these witnesses while acquitting the accused-respondents from the charges leveled against them, therefore, the finding given by the learned Trial Court for acquittal is totally without consideration of the facts and applicant of mind, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and respondents may be punished appropriately. 10. While attacking upon the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that alleged weapon of the offence was recovered from the respondents and said fact was proved by cogent evidence of the Investigating Officer, therefore, simply not supporting recovery by other witnesses it cannot be said that no occurrence took place many doubt is created, therefore, this appeal may kindly be accepted and the respondents may be punished for the offences committed by them under actions 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, we have perused the tire evidence, more specifically the statements of so called eye-witnesses PW-Pewa, PW-4 Mathura and PW-5 Ranjeet, so also, considered the fact that none the witnesses of recovery supported the prosecution story. 12. The learned Trial Court while considering the testimony of PW-2 Pewa gave cogent finding that this witness is not trustworthy because there are major contradiction in his statement recorded in investigation, so also, before the court. 13. The learned Trial Court considered the statements of PW-4 Mathura Ex.P-6). He turned hostile before the Court and did not support the prosecution story. The learned Trial Court also considered the evidence with regard to possession of the land in question and while considering the statement of PW-7 Shojaram and PW-14 Patwari Bhopal Lal who were independent witnesses gave finding that open field in question was belonging to one Ratan Meena. Likewise re have perused the statements of PW-5 Ranjeet. The learned Trial Court gave finding that although the prosecution has produced this witness was eye-witness but his name was not mentioned by the complainant in his statement, so also, lone of the witnesses of complainant party said that PW-5 Ranjeet was there. More so, PW-5 Ranjeet said in the cross-examination that against him the case of murder was registered in which the accused Shivraj gave evidence against him and PW-2 Bahadur Singh (complainant), who was Advocate in profession was his Counsel. Meaning thereby, the learned Trial Court considered the testimony of JW-5 Ranjeet in the light of the fact that in the murder case registered against him accused Shivraj was party and the complainant himself did not disclose the name of PW-5 Ranjeet in police statement, therefore, it is not safe to treat PW-5 Ranjeet as eye-witness in this case to convict the accused-respondents. 14. In our view, the learned Trial Court has elaborately considered the entire evidence in right perspective and given finding that statement of PW-2 Bahadur Singh and PW-5 Ranjeet cannot be accepted to convict the respondents. In our view, no case is made out for interference in the judgment impugned in this appeal filed by the complainant.Hence, this Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******