Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1257 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Narayan Singh

2015-07-07

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Jaishree Thakur, J. This application is preferred to have leave to appeal the judgment dated 7.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.10/2013. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 18.7.2011 Shri Jalam Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Charbhuja, submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand with assertion that on 16.7.2011 a written report was given at Police Station Charbhuja by Smt. Devabai stating therein that on 13.7.2011 at about 09:00 PM her son Narayan Singh left the house being telephonically called by Gordhan Singh and since then he has not returned. While making investigation on the report given by Smt. Devabai, the investigating officer Shri Jalam Singh received an information telephonically by Shri Dinesh Kumar Badala that Gordhan Singh disclosed him that he has killed Narayan Singh and buried his dead body in forest near Padasali turn. 3. On basis of the information given the investigating officer went to the place pointed out, recorded statement of Dinesh Kumar and also had talk telephonically with Gordhan Singh. Gordhan Singh informed him that he alongwith Hon Singh and Govind Singh killed Narayan Singh and buried his dead body at Padasali turn. On basis of the information aforesaid a dead body was recovered from Padasali turn. 4. A case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B Indian Penal Code was lodged at Police Station Kelwa. After necessary investigation a report as per provisions of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions being sessions triable. Learned Sessions Court after hearing accused persons framed charge against accused Narayan Singh @ Hon Singh, Goverdhan Singh @ Gordhan Singh and Govind Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 or in alternative 302/34 and 201 Indian Penal Code. Smt. Antari Devi @ Meethi Bai was charged for an offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code. On denial of the charge the trial commenced as desired. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 27 witnesses and by getting 73 documents exhibited. An opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances against them in prosecution evidence. No evidence was adduced in defence. 5. On denial of the charge the trial commenced as desired. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 27 witnesses and by getting 73 documents exhibited. An opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse and incriminating circumstances against them in prosecution evidence. No evidence was adduced in defence. 5. Learned trial court after examining the entire evidence arrived at the conclusion that the circumstances on which prosecution relies are not forming a complete chain indicating only one conclusion about involvement of the accused persons in the crime in question. Accordingly, all the four accused were acquitted. 6. While pressing this application, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution supported its case with definite circumstances which indicate involvement of the accused respondents in the case in question and, therefore, the acquittal recorded is erroneous. According to learned Public Prosecutor on basis of the report (Ex.P/16) given by Smt. Devabai the investigating agency initiated investigation and found that deceased Narayan Singh was called by accused Gordhan Singh. A dead body was also recovered from the place informed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Badala and also by accused Gordhan Singh telephonically. At the instance of accused Gordhan Singh an iron pipe was also recovered and that was used for causing death of Narayan Singh. A cellular phone of Narayan Singh was recovered from Govind Singh and at the instance of Smt. Antari Bai @ Meethi Bai two equipments necessary to dig grave were recovered. 7. We have considered all the circumstances on which the prosecution relies. 8. So far as the fact with regard to calling Shri Narayan Singh by Gordhan Singh is concerned, it is only the statement of Smt. Devabai and there is no call details to establish this fact. Smt. Devabai stated this fact being told by her son. We are of considered opinion that the investigating agency should have taken call details in this regard and should have establish the fact that deceased Narayan Singh received a call from Gordhan Singh. The prosecution instead of making investigation adequately in this regard just relied upon the fact stated by Smt. Devabai. 9. We are of considered opinion that the investigating agency should have taken call details in this regard and should have establish the fact that deceased Narayan Singh received a call from Gordhan Singh. The prosecution instead of making investigation adequately in this regard just relied upon the fact stated by Smt. Devabai. 9. The other fact with regard to recovery of dead body is concerned, that too is of no consequence in view of the fact that the police recovered the dead body at its own on basis of the information given by Shri Dinesh Kumar Badala and subsequent thereto got that place verified by accused Gordhan Singh. The recovery of iron pipe from Gordhan Singh too has not been established and beside that no material is available on record to connect that with crime in question. The other recoveries too have not been established. Shri Dinesh Kumar Badala (PW-16) also not supported the prosecution story and, therefore, he was declared hostile. 10. In these circumstances we do not find any wrong with the finding arrived by learned trial court. No case is made out for grant of leave as prayed for. The application, thus, is dismissed. Leave to appeal dismissed.