Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1526 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kantilal S/o Shri Premaram

2016-10-20

G.R.MOOLCHANDANI, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : The State Government has filed the instant Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 18.06.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.37/2013 by the Sessions Judge, Jalore whereby the learned trial court while convicting the accused Duja Ram and Posaram, acquitted the respondent Kanti Lal from the charges levelled against him under Section 302/34 IPC. Another appeal has been filed by the complainant Ranchora Ram to challenge the same judgment whereby the respondent Kanti Lal was acquitted from the charges levelled against him for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. As per the facts of the case on 15.06.2013 at about 10:00 pm, the complainant Ranchora Ram (PW-1) submitted a report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Bagra in which allegations were levelled by him that on 13.06.2013 in the morning at about 9:30 am, his brother Shankar Lal reached at Akhliya of the Village Dakatara on motorcycle. At that time, Duja Ram, Posaram, Suresh, Kanti Lal, Phata Ram, Hokiram, Jitu, Pinta, Bhota Ram, Pankhi Devi and Hukli Devi caused number of injuries by lathi to kill his brother Shankar. A specific allegation was levelled by the complainant Ranchora Ram against Duja Ram that he has inflicted injuries by lathi upon the head of his brother Shankar and thereafter all other persons inflicted injuries upon Shankar Lal. At the time of incident, wife of the deceased Shankar Lal, PW-2 Smt Chhati Devi and other family members namely Usha Devi, Smt. Talsi Devi, Rekha Kumari and their children intervened for his rescue. 2. As per the allegations of the complainant, after causing injuries, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence and the deceased Shankar lal was taken to Jalore Hospital by his family members from where he was referred for further treatment because he was in coma. The deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahemdabad. 3. Upon the aforesaid complaint, the FIR No.70/2013 was registered at Police Station Bagra under Section 143, 307 IPC. The deceased Shankar Lal died at Civil Hospital, Ahemdabad on 18.06.2013, therefore, in the investigation, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against three persons namely Duja Ram, Posaram and Kanti Lal in the court of ACJM No.2, Jalore from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. 4. The deceased Shankar Lal died at Civil Hospital, Ahemdabad on 18.06.2013, therefore, in the investigation, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against three persons namely Duja Ram, Posaram and Kanti Lal in the court of ACJM No.2, Jalore from where the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. 4. The learned trial court after framing charge under Section 302/34 IPC against accused Duja Ram, Posaram and Kanti Lal, commenced the trial. 5. In support of the prosecution case, the statement of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 23 documents were exhibited in the trial. 6. After recording evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused Duja Ram, Posaram and Kanti Lal were recorded but they denied all the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses and said that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The learned trial court after hearing arguments of both the sides, finally convicted accused Duja Ram and Posaram for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC respectively but acquitted the respondent Kanti Lal from the charges levelled against him for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 8. In this criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan so also in the criminal appeal filed by the complainant Ranchora Ram, the complainant is challenging the acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant submits that finding of acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal is totally perverse because eyewitness PW-2 Chhati Devi and other witnesses specifically made allegations with regard to participation of respondent Kanti Lal in the incident. It is also submitted that the findings given by the learned trial court for acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal is totally perverse because specific allegations are levelled against the respondent Kanti Lal for participating in the incident but the learned trial court committed a grave error to acquit the respondent Kanti Lal in spite of the fact that there is evidence of eye-witnesses, therefore, it is submitted the acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the instant criminal leave to appeal may kindly be granted against the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal. The counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal may kindly be admitted because due appreciation of evidence is required in this case. 10. Per contra, learned Advocate Shri Anil Joshi submits that whole prosecution story is false which is clear from the fact that the FIR was filed by the complainant on 15.06.2013 after two days of the incident against 11 persons but after investigation, the Investigating Officer found that eight persons have been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, filed charge sheet only against three accused persons namely Duja Ram, Posaram and Kanti Lal. During trial after recording statements of the prosecution witnesses, an application was filed under Section 319 CrPC for taking cognizance by the complainant Ranchora Ram as well as by the State Govt. but the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 14.08.2015. The said order was become final because it was not challenged by the complainant party before this Court. Meaning thereby a concocted story was framed by the complainant in which as many as 11 persons were named as accused but after investigation, charge sheet was filed only against three persons and ultimately after trial, the trial court acquitted the respondent Kanti Lal on the ground that there is no reliable material available on record, therefore the findings arrived at by the learned trial court for acquittal after perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses in para No.23 of the judgment, does not require any interference. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent Kanti Lal submits that no case is made out for granting leave to appeal so also to admit the appeal filed by the complainant against the finding of the acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal, therefore, the criminal leave to appeal as well as the appeal filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed. 12. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant so also counsel for the respondent Kanti Lal, we have perused the record of the case for participation of the respondent Kanti Lal only. Admittedly, there is no specific allegation against the respondent Kanti Lal for inflicting any injury to the deceased. 12. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant so also counsel for the respondent Kanti Lal, we have perused the record of the case for participation of the respondent Kanti Lal only. Admittedly, there is no specific allegation against the respondent Kanti Lal for inflicting any injury to the deceased. The witness PW-1 Ranchora Ram though named respondent Kanti Lal along with ten other persons but the police filed charge sheet only against three persons. The wife of the deceased Shankar Lal PW-2 Chhati Devi who was very much present on the place of occurrence stated before the Court that accused Duja Ram and Posaram inflicted injuries by lathi to her husband Shankar Lal. Similarly PW-3 Usha Devi specifically alleged that injuries were caused by accused Duja Ram and Posaram but no specific allegations were levelled by both these eye-witnesses who are present at the time of occurrence took place that any injury was caused by the respondent Kanti Lal. 13. We have perused the statement of PW-2 Chhati Devi. The said witness in her cross examination stated that in the statement recorded by the police (Ex. P-1), no allegation was levelled by her that respondent Kanti Lal inflicted any injury to the deceased Shankar Lal. PW-3 Usha Devi gave similar type of statements. Other two witnesses namely PW-7 Rekha and PW-8 Smt Talsi Devi were not present at the time of occurrence took place, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against respondent Kanti Lal. 14. After assessing entire evidence and documents available on record, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to grant the instant criminal leave to appeal filed by the State Govt. so also no case is made out to admit the appeal filed by the complainant against the finding of acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal vide the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No.37/2013. 15. In view of above discussion, the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal is hereby rejected, so also the appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal is hereby dismissed. 16. 15. In view of above discussion, the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the respondent Kanti Lal is hereby rejected, so also the appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of respondent Kanti Lal is hereby dismissed. 16. It is made it clear that any observation made in this order will not effect merits of the appeal filed by the convict accused Duja Ram and Posaram for offence under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC respectively. Leave to appeal dismissed.