Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1963 (RAJ)

Pepi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-03

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant Smt. Pepi Devi W/o Late Sh. Rama Ram, resident of Chhota Lotiwada, Police Station Barloot, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 9.10.2014 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short) in Special Case No.2/2012 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents nos. 2 to 4 from the offences under Sections 341, 302/34 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 2. As per the brief facts of the case a written report Ex.P/1 was filed by the complainant-appellant Pepi Devi on 20.5.2012 at about 5.00 P.M. at Police Station Barloot District Sirohi alleging therein that on 18.5.2012 her husband Rama Ram leave the house to left her daughter Manju to her matrimonial home Naradara on motor cycle. While returning from Naradara to Lotiwada on bridge, Raga Ram, Moti Ram Sharwan, Ramesh and Shambhu Singh intervened and assaulted him by Lathis and axe. According to the complainant, Rama Ram was taken to the dispensary of village Javal for treatment from where he was referred to Ahemdabad and injured Rama Ram taken to Civil Hospital, Ahemdabad where during treatment, he died on 20.5.2012. 3. Upon aforesaid complaint, the FIR no.38/2012 was registered at Police Station Barloot, District Sirohi under Sections 148, 149, 341, 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After registration of the FIR investigation was commenced and finally, the charge-sheet was filed under Section 341, 302/34 IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act cases against three accused namely Raga Ram, Moti Ram and Shambhu Singh. 4. The learned trial court after framing the charges against the accused non-petitioners for aforesaid offences commence the trial and in the trial the statements of 29 prosecution witnesses were recorded out of which PW-18 Gopal @ Gopa Ram, PW-19 Shaitan Singh, PW-20 Hadam Singh and eye witnesses PW-8 Champa Lal, PW-10 Keva Ram and PW-13 Shanker Lal turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution relied upon the statement of PW-15 Basi Kumari D/o late Sh. Rama Ram and PW-1 Pepi Devi (complainant appellant) to establish the prosecution case. The other witnesses are the witnesses of police. The prosecution relied upon the statement of PW-15 Basi Kumari D/o late Sh. Rama Ram and PW-1 Pepi Devi (complainant appellant) to establish the prosecution case. The other witnesses are the witnesses of police. In the trial 45 documents were exhibited and after recording statements of prosecution witnesses, the statement of all the non-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence no evidence was produced but 6 documents were exhibited and after that final arguments were heard by the learned trial court. 5. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties acquitted all the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 9.10.2014 which is impugned in this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that the trial court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 Pepi Devi and statement of PW-15 Basi Kumari, who were said to be eye witnesses of the occurrence and to whom the names of accused were disclosed by the deceased when they reached on the spot, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that PW-1 Pepi Devi wife of the deceased and PW-15 Basi Kumari daughter of the deceased Rama Ram specifically said in their statements that deceased Rama Ram disclosed the name of accused respondents before the PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI on the place of incident and before the doctor PW-2 Bhavishya Mangal but at the time of deciding the case, the learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate their evidence, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed and the accused-respondents deserves to be punished. 7. It is also argued by learned counsel for the complainant appellant that although in the FSL report Ex.P/35 no blood on Lathis was found but on knife, human blood was found but the learned trial court acquitted the respondents while observing that there is no opinion in the FSL report with regard to group of blood. Meaning thereby, as per the argument of learned counsel for the complainant-appellant the learned trial court did not consider the fact that human blood was found upon the knife recovered from the accused respondents, therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court has committed a gross illegality while acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW-15 Basi Kumari are the eye witnesses but their testimony is completely ignored by the learned trial court while deciding the case, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and the respondents may be convicted for the offences committed by them. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have considered the statements of PW-1 Pepi Devi, PW-15 Basi Kumari and PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI of Police Station Sheoganj, District Sirohi who reached at the place of occurrence upon receiving telephonic call. As per prosecution, the witnesses PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW- 15 Basi Kumari are eye witnesses and they specifically said in their statements that Rama Ram deceased disclosed the name of accused respondents before the PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI at the place of incident but upon persual of statements of PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI, he has specifically said that " ogka igqap ukdkcUnh 'kq: dh tgka ij oDr djhc 7-35 ih,e0 ij Fkkukf/kdkjh nsohpUn <+kdk }kjk tfj;s VsfyQksu crk;k x;k fd yksVhokMk ls bRryk feyh gS fd jxkjke ds lkFk jkekjke ekjus ij mrk: gqvk ogka ij igqaps rc eSa ogka ls jokuk gksdj ekfQd bRryk yksVhokM+k frjkgs ij igqapk tgka ij ,d eksVj lkbZfdy frjkgs ij fxjh gqbZ iM+h Fkh ftlds lkbZM esa ,d O;fDr jkekjke ?kk;y voLFkk esa iM+k gqvk Fkk ftlds ikl mldh vkSjr o mlds cPps fpYyk jgs Fks esjk vkneh ;gka iM+k gSA ge ikl esa x;s vkSj mldks gekjh ljdkjh thi esa cSBkdj mldh vkSjr o mlds cPps dks lkFk ysdj ljdkjh vLirky tkoky igqaps ,e0vks0 lkgc dks bZykt gsrq rgjhj nhA ut:c jkekjke c;ku nsus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gksus ls mlds c;ku ugha fy;sA " 10. In the cross-examination when specific question was put to the witness PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI whether the names of the accused respondents were disclosed by the wife of deceased or her daughter, he said that " eSaus yM+dh o jkeyky dh iRuh dk uke ugha iwNk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ml oDr jkeyky dh iRuh ,oa mldh yM+dh us eq>s ;g ugha crk;k fd jkeyky ds lkFk fdu yksxksa us ekjihV dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd mUgksaus vufHkKrk tkfgj dh FkhA ", Meaning thereby there is no strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that names were disclosed by the deceased on spot in front of PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI. The learned trial court elaborately considered the testimony of PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW- 15 Basi Kumari and said that no complaint was filed by the complainant on the date of incident, which is 18.5.2012 even though the police went on spot and took the injured Rama Ram to the hospital. The first information was given on 20.5.2013 after death of Rama Ram. Before that no information was given with regard to the allegation made in the written FIR. In view of above, we are of the firm opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the accused respondents. It is also worthwhile to observe here that as per the prosecution story the incident took place on a public street on 18.5.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. and PW-8 Champa Lal, the son of the deceased Rama Ram as well as the eye witness PW-10 Keva Ram turned hostile before the Court and did not support the prosecution story, therefore, there is no strength in the argument of appellant that learned trial court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW-15 Basi Kumari wife and daughter of the deceased Rama Ram and committed an error of law. 11. In our opinion, when both the witnesses were present on spot on 18.5.2012 and police party reach on spot and took the injured Rama Ram to the hospital then obviously at that time information was to be given with regard to the names of the accused and incident but till 20.5.2012 when Rama Ram died no information or allegation were levelled by these witnesses against the accused respondents. Thereafter, the written complaint was filed on 20.5.2012 by the appellant Pepi Devi (PW-1) which is Ex.P/1 in which she disclosed the names of Raga Ram, Moti Ram, Sharawan, Ramesh and Shambhu Singh but after investigation, police filed challan only against Raga Ram, Moti Ram and Shambhu Singh and after recording entire evidence, the learned trial court acquitted all the 3 accused respondents from the charges levelled against them while considering and appreciating the testimony of alleged eye witnesses PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW-15 Basi Kumari and other witnesses, so also, the FSL report in which it was reported that no blood was found upon Lathi which is said to be recovered and upon knife recovered from accused although blood was found but group of blood is not disclosed in the report of FSL. 12. After assessing the statement of PW-1 Pepi Devi and PW- 15 Basi Kumari and perusing finding given by the learned trial court, we are of the opinion that prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents because the fact of disclosing the name of the of the accused in front of PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI is not proved. More so, PW-24 Mohan Das, ASI stated before the court that Rama Ram was not in a position to give any statement when he rendered on spot and taken to the hospital. As per the basic principle of criminal law, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but here in this case, two eye witnesses namely PW-8 Champa Lal and PW10 Keva Ram turned hostile. No FIR was filed by the appellant on the date of incident in spite of the fact that appellant and police party came on spot and took the injured Rama Ram to the hospital and after 2 days, a written report was filed in which the complainant Pepi Devi made allegations against the 7 persons but after investigation, challan was filed only against 3 persons and in trial, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondents. 13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them for the alleged offence therefore, no case is made out for interference. 13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them for the alleged offence therefore, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this appeal filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******