Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1645 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bheru Ram

2015-09-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The instant cr. leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Merta in Sessions Case No.42/2014 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondent for offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, the complainant Sayri W/o Bheru Ram filed a written complaint on 10.4.2012 at Police Station, Thawala, District Merta in which it was alleged that she and her daughter went to Ghasi Ram son of elder brother of her husband at Bherunda and returned back to the village Rohisa on 14.4.2014. At that time, his son Prem informed that his father Bheru Ram murdered his brother after consuming liquor and run away from the house. After hearing cry the villagers and Sarpanch, Rohisa and Rakesh Gaur informed the police. The complainant raised apprehension that her husband accused Bheru Ram can destroy their peace of the family, therefore, they may be provided adequate security so also take action against her husband Bheru Ra, who committed murder of her son Girdhari. 3. On the said information, FIR no.49/2012 was registered under Section 302 IPC against respondent Bheru Ram and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degana from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta but later on transferred to the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Merta where trial took place. After framing charge under Section 302 IPC, the statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded including complainant PW2 Sayri and 7 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of respondent Bheru Ram were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. 4. The learned trial court acquitted the respondent Bheru Ram from the charge levelled against him for the reason that all the witnesses turned hostile except investigating officer. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that it is a case in which although all the witnesses including complainant an PW3 Prem turned hostile and did not level any allegation against the respondent but on the basis of statement of investigating officer it is a case in which leave to appeal required to be granted. 6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor we have perused the statements of all the witnesses. 6. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor we have perused the statements of all the witnesses. In our opinion, the complainant PW2 sayri wife of respondent herself turned hostile and not support prosecution case. Similarly, the witness PW- 3 Prem son of complainant turned hostile and other witnesses PW- 4 Sharwan brother of the deceased and PW- 6 Ghisa Ram, nephew of the respondent although made allegation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the respondent but in the court during trial, turned hostile, therefore, upon such evidence it cannot be said that findings given by the learned trial court so as to acquit the respondent are erroneous. In view of the above, no case is made out to grant leave against the judgment dated 11.7.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Merta because there is no evidence on record against the respondent. Therefore, this cr. leave to appeal is hereby rejected.