Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2026 (RAJ)

Jaspreet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant Jaspreet Singh against the judgment dated 17.6.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge NO.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.94/2012 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents No.2 to 6 for offence under Sections 148, 302/149 and 342/149 I.P.C. while convicting seven other accused persons for said offences. 2. As per facts of the case, the appellant filed a written report before the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh on 12.4.2011 in which it is alleged that at about 8 O Clock in the morning when his father and mother were coming from the house of Satpal Singh at that time when they reached at the house of Karnel Singh, the accused Gurdayal Singh and his two sons Kulvindra, Jasvindra, Lal Singh, Balkaran Singh, Jaskaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Sukha Singh, Preetam Singh, Tarsem Singh @ Sem Singh, Darshan Singh, Sukha Singh S/o Harnek Singh came there armed with lathi and axe and all of them surrounded the motor cycle and took away his father Puran Singh forcibly in the house of Gurdayal Singh. It is also alleged that he and his mother tried to save his father but all the accused threatened her that if you will interfere then you will be murdered. As per facts, all the accused took his father in the house of Gurdayal Singh where they gave severe beating, due to that his father Puran Singh died. At that time he called his uncle Jagjeet Singh and other family members and entered in the house of Gurdayal Singh to search his father but they saw that all the accused persons including Gurdeep Kaur, Amarjeet Kaur were beating his father by lathi and axe. According to the complainant, all accused persons after beating came out from the house and said that Puran Singh has deied and they snatched Rs. 8,000/- from the pocket of his father. 3. According to the complainant, all accused persons after beating came out from the house and said that Puran Singh has deied and they snatched Rs. 8,000/- from the pocket of his father. 3. Upon above complaint, FIR No.100/2011 was registered by the SHO, Police Station Sadar under Sections 302, 342, 379, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and after investigation filed challan only against Gurdayal Singh, Jasvinder Singh, Kulvinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Darshan Singh, Sukha @ Sukhraj Singh, Tersem Singh @ Sema Singh, Balkaran Singh and Jaskaran Singh under Section 302, 342, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. in the Court of ACM (Junior Division), cum Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Hanumangarh but transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Hanumangarh for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 148, 302/149 and 342/149 I.P.C. and commenced trial. The Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Hanumangarh was abolished, therefore, again the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Hanumangarh where final trial was conducted. 4. After framing charges in the trial, statement of PW-1 Baljeet Kaur, PW-2 Jasvinder Singh, PW-3 Jaspreet Singh, PW-4 Jagmeet Singh, PW-5 Angrej Kaur, PW-6 Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, PW-7 Badri Prasad, PW-8 Harpal Kaur were recorded by the trial Court, thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant for taking cognizance against additional accused Lal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Preeta, Amarjeet Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur. 5. Learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 10.7.2012 after taking cognizance against Lal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Preeta, Amarjeet Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur under Section 148, 302/149 and 342/149 I.P.C. and issued arrest warrant and commenced trial. 6. The learned trial Court after securing the presence of additional accused persons framed charges under Section 148, 302/149 and 342/149 I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the statement of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and during trial two accused Gurdayal Singh and Lal Singh died, therefore, proceedings against them were dropped. 7. 6. The learned trial Court after securing the presence of additional accused persons framed charges under Section 148, 302/149 and 342/149 I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the statement of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and during trial two accused Gurdayal Singh and Lal Singh died, therefore, proceedings against them were dropped. 7. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, the statement of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter, a opportunity to lead evidence was given to the accused persons and in turn they produced nine witnesses to prove their innocence. 8. The learned trial Court after taking into considering entire evidence convicted seven accused persons namely Jasvindra Singh, Kulvinder Singh, Jaskaran Singh, Balkaran Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Sukha @ Sukhraj Singh and Darshan Singh but acquitted the respondents No.2 to 6 namely Tersem Singh @ Sem Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurpreet Singh @ Preeta, Amarjeet Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur vide judgment dated 17.6.2015. 9. The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 6 on the ground that all the respondents No.2 to 6 are erroneously and illegally acquitted by the trial Court in spite of reliable the evidence on record, therefore, the acquittal of respondent No.2 to 6 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the trial Court has committed gross error apparent on face of record because finding of acquittal has been given by the trial Court on the ground that the Investigating Officer PW-13 Om Prakash has admitted in his cross examination that in his investigation Lal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Preeta @ Gurpreet Singh, Amarjeet Jaiur and Gurdeep Kaur were not found as accused during the investigation. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the acquittal on this ground alone is totally erroneous because there is ample evidence on record to prove the fact that the respondents No.2 to 6 were members of unlawful assembly and they participated in the incident and also inflicted injuries to the deceased, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court for acquittal of respondents No.2 to 6 is totally contrary to evidence on record. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant complainant submits that during trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including eye witnesses and upon their evidence, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the prosecution for arraying the respondents No.2 to 6 as accused and upon that application, cognizance was taken by the trial Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents No.2 to 6. In view of above, this appeal filed by the complainant may kindly be accepted. Lastly, it is argued that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1 Baljeet Kaur, PW-2 Jasvinder Singh, PW-4 Jagmeet Singh so also PW-8 Harpal Kaur because all these witnesses categorically stated that the respondents No.2 to 6 were members of unlawful assembly and they caused injury to the deceased, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents NO.2 to 6 vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that against all the accused persons charge under Section 302 read with 149 and 148 and 342/149 I.P.C. was framed and upon perusal of statement of PW-1 Baljeet Kaur, PW-2 Jasvinder Singh, PW-4 Jagmeet Singh so also PW-8 Harpal Kaur, it will reveal that there is no specific allegation against respondents No.2 to 6 so also no weapon was recovered from them. Further, it is argued that the entire prosecution case is totally absurd because as per the post-mortem report Ex.P-12, eleven injuries were found upon the body of deceased, out of which three were contusions, one injury was bruise and two stab wounds were found but charge was framed against 14 persons without specific allegation. The learned trial Court after assessment of entire evidence and medical evidence so also upon the fact that the investigating officer PW-13 Om Prakash clearly stated before the Court that in his investigation, respondents No.2 to 6 were not found as an accused and acquitted them, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court to acquit the respondents No.2 to 6 because there is no evidence to connect with the crime and they were impleaded as an accused upon application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, this appeal filed by the complainant against the respondents No.2 to 6 may kindly be dismissed. 12. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. Admittedly, there is no specific allegation against any of the accused persons, more so, the challan was filed only against seven persons by the Investigating Officer and during trial, after recording the statement of some prosecution witnesses, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against additional accused. Learned trial Court after considering the statement of eight prosecution witnesses took cognizance upon application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.2 to 6 vide order dated 10.7.2012. Admittedly, no weapon has been recovered in the investigation from the respondents No.2 to 6. In the statement of eye witnesses PW-1 Baljeet Kaur, PW-2 Jasvinder Singh, PW-4 Jagmeet Singh so also PW-8 Harpal Kaur, no overt act and specific allegation for inflicting any specific injury by the respondents No.2 to 6 is made. Further, no weapon was recovered from them during investigation nor their participation was found, therefore, no challan was filed against respondents No.2 to 6. The learned trial Court while taking into considering the statement of PW-13 Om Prakash Investigating Officer coupled with other evidence held that respondent No.2 to 6 are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 13. In our opinion, when no specific allegation to inflict injury and participation is levelled against the respondents No.2 to 6 nor any evidence of enmity with deceased is on record against the respondents No.2 to 6, then there is no question to held that error has been committed by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents No.2 to 6 from the charges levelled against them. 14. In our opinion, the trial Court has not only taken into consideration the statement of PW-13 Om Prakash Investigating Officer but has also discussed the entire evidence on record so as to decide the case. 15. In view of above, we see no reason to held that error has been committed by the learned trial Court to acquit the respondents NO.2 to 6 from the charges levelled against them. Hence, the instant criminal appeal filed by the complainant Jaspreet Singh is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******