Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 104 (RAJ)

Asha v. State of Rajasthan

2016-01-15

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, P.K.LOHRA

body2016
ORDER : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant Cr. appeal has been filed by the complainant Asha W/o deceased Mukesh under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.9.2015 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 2/2013 whereby the respondents nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 302, 302/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the brief facts of the case on 9.9.2012 a complaint (Ex.P/1) was submitted by PW - 1 Mahaveer before Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara against respondents Vikram Singh, Hemander Singh @ Heri and Himmat @ Dimple Suthar in which it is alleged that on 8.9.2012 at about 8 O’clock in the evening all the persons mentioned above assaulted deceased Mukesh while calling him on telephone. Due to the injuries inflicted by the aforesaid persons by sharp edged weapon deceased died. 3. Upon aforesaid complaint FIR no. 350/2012 (Ex.P/1) was registered under Section 302 IPC and after investigation, challan was filed against 3 persons namely Vikram Singh, Hemander Singh @ Heri and Himmat @ Dimple Suthar. The learned trial court after framing charge recorded statements of 17 prosecution witnesses including 4 eye witnesses and recorded statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, finally heard the case and acquitted them from the offence under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that judgment is totally illegal and based upon erroneous finding because prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it is submitted that even though eye witnesses PW - 9 Sohan Lal, PW - 11 Kishan Lal and PW - 10 Abhilash turned hostile but the eye witnesses PW - 15 Sushila and PW - 16 Soniya corroborated the allegation levelled against the respondents, but the learned trial court erroneously acquitted them, therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and this appeal may be accepted. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the entire evidence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the entire evidence. Admittedly, the eye witnesses PW - 9 Sohan Lal, PW - 11 Kishan Lal and PW - 10 Abhilash turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story and other two witnesses PW - 15 Sushila and PW - 16 Soniya gave contrary statement before the court, therefore, the learned trial court while assessing the evidentiary value of these witnesses gave finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. After perusing the statement of all witnesses and considering the important fact that most of the eye witnesses turned hostile, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to reverse the finding given by the learned trial court for acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 7. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this Cr. appeal is hereby dismissed.