Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2035 (RAJ)

Meera v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant Smt. Meera W/o Shri Shobha Lal, resident of Dagaliyo Ki Magri, nearby Jyoti School, Bhuwana, District Udaipur against the judgment dated 9.6.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court for short) in Sessions Case No.40/2013 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the offence under Section s 365 and 366 IPC while giving benefit of doubt. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, the FIR was registered against the respondents for offence under Section 365 and 366 IPC upon a written complaint filed by the appellant Smt. Meera W/o Shobha Lal Gameti in which an allegation was leveled by her that today in the morning at about 8.00 p.m. when she was going at Silver Apartment for her house in routine at that time near Navratan Complex, a body was talking on telephone and in her back side a white Maruti Van came and the said body alongwith two other forcibly took her in the vehicle at Rama village via Jamudiya Ki Naal and in the vehicle when she was hue and cry for liberty then some villagers got released her from the illegal custody of the respondents and in front of villagers, they disclosed their names as Shanker S/o Onkar, Shanti Lal S/o Udai Mal and Nand Lal. The complainant informed the incident to her husband and respondents were caught hold on spot. 3. Upon aforesaid written complaint, the FIR no.204/2012 was registered at police sation Sukher, District Udaipur and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused respondents for offence under Section s 365 and 366 IPC. 4. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, North City, Udaipur committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court from where the case was transferred in the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur where trial took place. 5. In the trial after framing charges, the statements of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the respondents were recorded but the learned trial court acquitted both the respondents from the charges leveled against them for committing offence under Section 365 and 366 IPC vide judgment dated 9.6.2014. 6. In the trial after framing charges, the statements of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the respondents were recorded but the learned trial court acquitted both the respondents from the charges leveled against them for committing offence under Section 365 and 366 IPC vide judgment dated 9.6.2014. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding given by the learned trial court is totally illegal because the material evidence of PW-1 Smt. Meera Devi and PW-2 Shobha Lal were not considered properly and so also, the police has not collected the evidence, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the wrong finding is given by the learned trial court that the instant case is outcome of the registered at the same police station against her husband Shobha Lal on 21.11.2013, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I have perused the judgment as well as the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is very strange that in the FIR an allegation was leveled by the appellant that she was forcibly pushed in the van and released with the intervention of the villagers but none of the villager or witness is produced before the court to prove the allegation leveled in the FIR. In all 7 prosecution witnesses were produced, out of which PW-1 Meera-complainant and PW-2 Shobha Lal her husband and there is no other evidence on record to prove the allegation leveled in the FIR. More so, in defence a specific plea was taken by the respondent that the instant FIR is outcome of the FIR filed by Shantilal (respondent no.2) for offence under Section 345/323/34 IPC at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur on 21.11.2013 against Shobha Lal, husband of complainant. 9. In my opinion, upon appreciation of the evidence and the finding given by the learned trial court in judgment impugned it is abundantly clear that to prove the allegation of complainant, there is no evidence on record upon which it can be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the allegation of kidnapping. 9. In my opinion, upon appreciation of the evidence and the finding given by the learned trial court in judgment impugned it is abundantly clear that to prove the allegation of complainant, there is no evidence on record upon which it can be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the allegation of kidnapping. As per the facts stated by the complainant in the FIR, she was released on the intervention of the villagers, but none of the villager is produced as prosecution witnesses therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation with regard to kidnapping. 10. In view of the fact that prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of kidnapping beyond doubt, the finding given by the learned trial court that the instant case is outcome of the earlier FIR filed by the respondent no.2 does not call for any interference.Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******