Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1788 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sumersingh

2015-10-14

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.1996 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Special Sessions Case No.33/1993, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989 hereinafter). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1993 at about 12:30 A.M., Dr A.H.Ansari of Central Hospital, Jawar Mines had informed the police on telephone that at this time, Narayan Lal Khatik and Dev Kishan Mali brought Kishan Lal Khatik s/o Ram Lal Khatik in the emergency and after examining him, he found Kishan Lal dead. The persons, who brought Kishan Lal to the hospital, told that due to vertigo, Kishan Lal fell down out of his house and they did not know the cause of his death. On receiving this report, Marg No.5/1993 under section 174 CrPC was registered by the police. The police prepared Panchnama of the dead body, recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the post mortem of the deceased done. FIR No.15/1993 vide Ex.P/17 dated 09.03.1993 was registered at Police Station, Jawar Mines, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC against the accused-respondent, wherein it is mentioned that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that in the preceding night, deceased Kishan Lal Khatik and the accused had attended a party in Durganagar and while returning, accused was driving the car with great speed to which, deceased raised objection, therefore, a quarrel took place between them and the accused-respondent assaulted the deceased and caused injuries to him, which resulted into death of Kishan Lal Khatik. After investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Judicial Magistrate, Sarada had committed the case to the trial court, wherein charges were framed against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences. The accused-respondent denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced as many as 21 witnesses and also got certain documents exhibited. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 CrPC and one witness viz. DW.1 Daya Shanker was also produced in defence. The accused-respondent denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced as many as 21 witnesses and also got certain documents exhibited. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 CrPC and one witness viz. DW.1 Daya Shanker was also produced in defence. Learned trial court, after hearing learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and after pondering over the evidence produced by the parties, acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under section 302 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under section 302 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, however, the learned trial court, without appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution in right perspective, has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that PW.1 Smt. Kanchan Bai and PW.2 Anita have specifically stated in their statements that the deceased was dashed by the accused-respondent by running a car at fast speed and on account of that the deceased received several injuries and later on he died. It is argued that PW.11 Dr Anis Ahmed has also clearly stated in his statement that death of Kishan Lal was caused due to head injury. The learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that from the evidence produced by the prosecution, charge against the accused-respondent of murdering Kishan Lal Khatik was fully proved but the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent ignoring the material piece of evidence and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and the accused-respondent is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the head injury, on account of which, Kishan Lal Khatik died, was inflicted by the accused-respondent and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the head injury, on account of which, Kishan Lal Khatik died, was inflicted by the accused-respondent and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences. It is further argued that PW.1 Kanchan Bai and PW.2 Anita are not the eye-witnesses of the incident and, therefore, their testimonies are not sufficient to convict the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 302 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and the trial court has rightly not relied upon their testimonies. It is also contended that none of the witnesses, who were present in the party, where the quarrel between accused-respondent and the deceased had taken place, has stated that the accused-respondent had inflicted any injury on the head of the deceased. It is contended that on the other hand from the evidence produced by the prosecution, it appears that though there was some fight between the accused-respondent and the deceased in the night of 08.03.1993 at the house of Surendra Singh, however, when the accused-respondent was leaving the house of Surendra Singh in his car, the deceased jumped over the bonnet of the car and thereafter fell down and after the said incident, he went to his house, where he died. It is contended that from the statements of PW.3 Kishan Lal, PW.4 Dev Kishan and PW.5 Unkar Lal, it is clear that the accused-respondent had not assaulted the deceased but he himself jumped over the car of the accused-respondent and thereafter fell down and in such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the accused-respondent inflicted head injury to deceased - Kishan Lal, on account of which, he died. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has, therefore, argued that since the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence, which could connect the accused-respondent with the commission of crime, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent from the offences punishable under section 302 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully examined the record of the trial court. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully examined the record of the trial court. 7. Admittedly, initially the police had started investigation in relation to the death of Kishan Lal Khatik by registering Marg but later on, during the course of investigation, when it was revealed that the deceased and the accused-respondent had attended a party on 08.03.1993, where some quarrel had taken place between them and accused-respondent had assaulted the deceased. FIR Ex.P/17 was registered against the accused-respondent. 8. To prove the charge against the accused-respondent that he had assaulted the deceased on 08.03.1993, the prosecution had produced witnesses viz. PW.1 Smt. Kanchan Bai and PW.2 Anita, who are wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. From bare perusal of their statements, it is clear that the said witnesses were not present when the deceased and the accused-respondent were quarreling at the house of Surendra Singh. The said witnesses have also not stated that the accused-respondent had run over the deceased by his car. They are not the eye-witnesses and have stated as the deceased told them about the incident when he reached his house. The other witnesses, who as per the prosecution, were present at the house of Surendra Singh in the night of 08.03.1993 have not stated that the accused-respondent had inflicted injury on the head of the deceased. On the other hand, the said witnesses PW.3 Kishan Lal, PW.4 Dev Kishan and PW.5 Unkar Lal have stated that the deceased jumped over the car of the accused-respondent and thereafter fell down. The prosecution has failed to produce any witness to prove the allegations that the respondent had inflicted injury to the deceased on his head. 9. After carefully examining the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the deceased himself had jumped over the bonnet of the car of the accused-respondent and thereafter, some altercation took place between them but there is no evidence to the effect that the accused-respondent had dashed the deceased by his car with the intention to kill him. 9. After carefully examining the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the deceased himself had jumped over the bonnet of the car of the accused-respondent and thereafter, some altercation took place between them but there is no evidence to the effect that the accused-respondent had dashed the deceased by his car with the intention to kill him. As per the statement of PW.11 Dr Anis Ahmed, all the injuries on the body of the deceased were simple in nature, however, he has stated that cause of death of Kishan Lal Khatik was shock due to head injury but the prosecution has failed to produce evidence to the effect that the said injury had been caused by the accused-respondent. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.