Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1759 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jabariya @ Jabbar Singh

2015-10-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.47/94, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-2 Kewa had submitted a written report Exb.P/1 at Police Station, Ahore, District Jalore on 29.03.1994, while alleging that they are three brothers, eldest one is Birma and youngest one is Varda and they are having separate herds. It is further stated that yesterday, they all three brothers took away their herds for the purpose of grazing. He and Varda took away their herds in the village Kshetrava. It is stated that at about 11:00 AM, he proceeded towards village along with his herds for the purpose of drinking water, whereas Varda went towards the agriculture field of Bagji Rajpoot. In the evening, when he reached at home along with his herd, his brother Birma informed him that Varda's herd came alone. Then he started searching for Varda but he was not found. Thereafter he informed his brother Birma that today at about 11:00 AM when Varda along with his herd went towards Bagji Rajpoot's agriculture field then he saw that the accused respondent was chasing him and, therefore, they should go there to search Varda. When they reached the field of Bagji Rajpoot, they found dead body of Varda near a tree of prosopis cineraria and his turban was also there. They found injuries on the face of the dead body and also found the boot (shoes) marks nearby the dead body. It is further stated that accused respondent-Jabariya @ Jabbar Singh is notorious and contemptuous person and he has killed their brother Varda when he was cutting branches of prosopis cineraria. On receiving the said written report, the SHO, Police Station, Ahore, District Jalore has registered the FIR No.49/1994 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, the prosecution got examined as many as 16 witnesses and also produced several documents. After completion of investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of investigation, the prosecution got examined as many as 16 witnesses and also produced several documents. The statements of accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he has stated that the case has been registered against him at the instance of Ganpat Singh and Thakur Deep Singh. The trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 31.08.1995. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1995, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt. However, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that the involvement of the accused respondent in commission of crime is fully proved from the boot (shoes) moulds taken by the police from the place of incident. The involvement of the accused respondent in commission of crime is also fully proved from the blood stained cloths and the weapon of offence, recovered at the instance of the accused respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the prosecution has proved the motive for which the accused respondent has killed the deceased by producing PW-5 Lehra widow of deceased, however, the trial court has grossly erred in disbelieving the said evidence. It is argued that the prosecution has produced chain of evidence from which, it is fully proved that the offence has been committed by the accused respondent. 5. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the criminal appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1995 may kindly be set aside and the accused respondent be convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was not conclusive in nature and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. It is prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was not conclusive in nature and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. It is prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties, perused the impugned judgment and carefully scrutinized the record. 8. In the present case the unnatural death of the deceased Varda has been proved by the prosecution by exhibiting the postmortem report and by producing the PW-6 Dr. P.R. Chundawat. Admittedly, there was no eye witness in the present case and the prosecution has connected the accused respondent with the commission of crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The police has taken boot (shes) moulds from the place of incident and to prove that the same are of the accused-respondent, got it verified from the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exb.P/19. The trial court has refused to place reliance upon the said piece of evidence while observing that the place from where the boot (shoes) moulds were taken is the agriculture field of accused respondent and it is natural that the accused respondent used to go to his field and even if the prosecution has proved that the said boot (shoes) moulds from the agriculture field are of the accused respondent, it is not sufficient to connect the accused from commission of crime 9. In respect of recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused respondent, the trial court has held that though the prosecution was able to prove that the clothes and shoes recovered at the instance of the accused respondent are blood stained but the prosecution has failed to prove that the blood as the said articles is of the same blood group of the deceased and, therefore, the recovery of blood stained clothes and shoes of the accused respondent is not sufficient to connect him with the crime. 10. In respect of the recovery of the weapon of offence, the trial court has held that no blood was found on said weapon of offence during the forensic test and, therefore, the said weapon cannot be connected with the offence. 11. 10. In respect of the recovery of the weapon of offence, the trial court has held that no blood was found on said weapon of offence during the forensic test and, therefore, the said weapon cannot be connected with the offence. 11. After taking into consideration the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has failed to fully establish the guilty of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was not conclusive in nature and it cannot be said that from the said evidence it cannot be inferred that in all human probabilities the accused respondent has committed the murder of the deceased. 12. In such circumstances, we find that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC because the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused respondent with commission of crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence produced before the trial court. Resultantly, this criminal appeal has no force, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.