Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1638 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar

2015-09-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant cr. leave to appeal has been filed under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 26.7.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case NO.36/2013 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 304 -B and in alternative under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kalu Ram PW1, cousin brother of deceased Gogal submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station, Mahajan at about 11.14 am on 5.8.2012 in which it is alleged that his sister Gogal got married with Vinod S/o Shanker before 8-9 years and after one year of her marriage the family members of her in-laws started cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry. His sister whenever came to the parents house said that Vinod, Shanker Lal, Shara Ramand Santra are torturing her and harassing for demand of dowry. It is also stated by the complainant that a telephone call came from Vinod and Shara Ram that your sister burnt and upon said information the complainant and his brother, uncle and other persons went in-laws house of his sister Gogal where the body of his sister Gogal was lying. 3. Upon aforesaid written report (Ex.P/1) the FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered at Police Station, Mahajan against the respondent and after investigation the investigating officer of Police Station, Mahajan filed chall under Section 498A and 302 IPC against the respondent in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Loonkaransar from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bikaker, but later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner. 4. In the trial, the trial judge framed charge under Section 498A and 302 IPC and granted opportunity to lead evidence. 5. In support of prosecution statements of 11 witnesses were recorded including PW1 Kalu Ram complainant and mother of deceased PW7 Reshma and in the trial 10 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of respondent Vinod was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court granted opportunity to lead evidence to the defence and in defence the statement of Kalu Ram were exhibited as Ex.D/1. 6. Thereafter, the statement of respondent Vinod was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court granted opportunity to lead evidence to the defence and in defence the statement of Kalu Ram were exhibited as Ex.D/1. 6. The learned trial court thereafter heard the final arguments and finally acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case in which the learned trial court has committed an error of law while acquitting the respondent from the charges levelled against him because complainant corroborated the prosecution story and it is a case of burn, therefore, the instant cr. leave to appeal may kindly be granted because evidence of prosecution has not been assessed properly by the learned trial court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits hat all the prosecution witnesses except PW1 Kalu Ram turned hostile and did not support the allegation levelled by the complainant Kalu Ram (PW-1). Further it is pointed out even mother of the deceased PW7 Reshma turned hostile and did not support the allegation levelled by the complainant Kalu Ram in the FIR. Therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case for committing offence under Section 498A and 302 IPC, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties We have perused the judgment dated 26.7.2014 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents from the charge levelled against him for offence under Section 498A and 302 IPC. It emerges from the evidence and finding of the learned trial court that in all 11 witnesses were examined from the prosecution side and out of which PW4 Mahaveer, PW6 Narendra, PW8 Raja Devi, PW9 Indira, PW10 Salma an PW 11 Kalu Ram turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Further, it is submitted that complainant is not eye witness of the case. In our opinion when prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt then obviously there is no point for the learned trial court except to acquit the respondent Vinod from the charges levelled against him. Further, it is submitted that complainant is not eye witness of the case. In our opinion when prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt then obviously there is no point for the learned trial court except to acquit the respondent Vinod from the charges levelled against him. It is also worthwhile to observe that no charge-sheet was filed by the police under Section 302 part B IPC because marriage was solemnized before 8-9 years. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.7.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case no.36/2013. Therefore, the instant cr. leave to appeal filed by the State is hereby rejected.