Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1023 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mani Lal

2016-07-19

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16 12.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 71/2013 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. 2. As per brief facts of the case, on 13.03.2013, son of deceased Smt. Poni namely Suresh (PW-1) filed a written report before the SHO PS Sadar alleging therein that on 12.04.2013 at about 8:00 pm, he and his brother Subhash and sister Reena went out of his house to attend marriage ceremony. In the night at about 11:00 pm, when they returned back at home, they saw that their mother Smt. (deceased) and father Manilal were sleeping, therefore, they slept outside the house. In the morning, at about 4:00 am, his younger sister Reena got up and found that his mother Smt. Poni was not available on cot. On searching the nearby area, his mother was not traced out but in the morning, Meera W/o Nagji told him that when she was going to field for taking Kapas, she saw the dead body of Smt. Poni. Upon receiving such information, they reached at the field where dead body of the mother of the complainant was lying and number of injuries were found upon the dead body so also blood was also coming out from the injuries. 3. Upon the aforesaid information, after registration of the FIR, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent husband for the offences under Section 302 & 201 IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banswara. The Sessions Judge, Banswara after hearing arguments framed charges against the respondent husband on 17.09.2013, for committing offences under Section 302 & 201 IPC, but the respondent denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. In the trial, the statements of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, statement of the respondent husband was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the charges levelled by the prosecution and said that all the allegations are false and that his relations with his wife were cordial. 5. In defence, statement of DW Prakash was recorded in the trial. Thereafter, statement of the respondent husband was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the charges levelled by the prosecution and said that all the allegations are false and that his relations with his wife were cordial. 5. In defence, statement of DW Prakash was recorded in the trial. The learned Trial Judge after recording evidence finally heard the arguments and vide judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed in Sessions Case No. 71/2013 acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him for committing offence under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment impugned is totally erroneous because by leading cogent evidence and trustworthy evidence, the prosecution has proved its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence; therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. It is also submitted that upon information given by respondent Manilal, one lathi (Halki Lathi) was also recovered vide Exhibit-P.12 and upon information given by respondent Manilal, a Baniyan and Pants which he was wearing at the time of occurrence were recovered vide Exhibit-P.14 in front of PW-7 Uda and PW-8 Dhulji and recovery is further proved by the investigating officer (PW-16), but the learned trial court while giving erroneous finding acquitted the respondent husband, therefore, impugned judgment may kindly be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor, we have perused the judgment and evidence on record. 9. Admittedly, the author of the FIR, PW-1 Suresh, PW-2 Subhash, PW-3 Miss Reena are sons and daughter of the deceased and respondents turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. It is also an important fact that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence but the recovery has not been proved by the prosecution because independent witnesses of recovery PW-7 Uda and PW-8 Dhul Ji turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 10. Upon perusal of the finding given by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed in acquitting the respondent husband from the charges levelled against him under Sections 302, 201 IPC because most of the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 11. In view of above, the instant criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment 16.12.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 71/2013 is hear by rejected.