Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 476 (RAJ)

Atar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.20/2014, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder from the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.10.2013, the appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh against Sunder, Gurjant, Balbeer, Laxmi and Ramesh while alleging that on 23.09.2013 he was sleeping along with his family members and when he awoke, he found that his 16 years' old daughter was not in the house. He further alleged that his brother-in-law Santram told him that two days ago, Ramesh Bawri had threatened him that he would kidnap the daughter of the appellant and forcibly marry her with Sunder. The appellant also alleged that when he made search of his house, he found that Rs. 15000/- is missing, which was kept in trunk. It was also alleged that daughter of the appellant was wearing some gold and silver ornaments. The appellant had belief that the above named person had kidnapped his daughter. The complaint filed by the appellant was sent to the Police Station, Sadar Suratgarh under section 156(3) CrPC for investigation and an FIR No.276/2013 was lodged at Police Station, Sadar, Suratgarh for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 IPC. The police had also filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder and the trial court framed charges against him for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as six witnesses and also exhibited 12 documents. Statements of accused-respondent Shyam Sunder were recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he has specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. The trial court, after hearing the parties concerned, has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC vide impugned judgment. 4. Statements of accused-respondent Shyam Sunder were recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he has specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. 3. The trial court, after hearing the parties concerned, has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC vide impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC as from the school record pertaining to the daughter of the appellant produced before the trial court, she was minor at the time of incident and even if she has stated in her statement that accused-respondent Shyam Sunder had not abducted her, then also her testimony before the trial court is of no significance as she, at the time of incident, was minor. It is submitted that the other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that daughter of the appellant was abducted by the accused-respondent and on the basis of the said evidence, the prosecution has clearly proved the case against the accused-respondent, however, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offences while ignoring the said peace of evidence. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. 6. The trial court has discussed the evidence produced by the prosecution in detail and given a finding that none of the witnesses has stated that he saw the accused-respondent committing the offence. The appellant, who was produced as PW.2, has stated that his brother-in-law Santram had told him that Ramesh Bawri had threatened him that he would abduct his daughter for the purpose of marry her with accused-respondent-Shyam Sunder, however, he has not stated that he saw the accused-respondent abducting his daughter. Other prosecution witnesses have also not specifically stated that they saw the accused - respondent abducting the daughter of the appellant but simply stated that they have been informed by somebody else that daughter of the appellant has been abducted by the accused-respondent. 7. It is important to note that daughter of the appellant was examined as PW.5 and she has specifically stated in her statement that the accused-respondent did not abduct her but she went to her aunt's house as per her own wish because she was ill-treated by her father and stepmother. 7. It is important to note that daughter of the appellant was examined as PW.5 and she has specifically stated in her statement that the accused-respondent did not abduct her but she went to her aunt's house as per her own wish because she was ill-treated by her father and stepmother. She specifically denied the suggestion that the accused-respondent had abducted her; she lived with him and from his loin, she gave birth to a male child. 8. The trial court, after taking into consideration the statement of PW.5, has given a finding that when the daughter of the appellant herself has denied the allegation that the accused-respondent had abducted her or while living with him, she gave birth to a male child, it cannot be held that the prosecution has produced cogent and reliable evidence to hold the accused-respondent guilty of commission of offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. 9. After going through the findings of the learned trial court as well as the statement of PW.5 as referred by the trial court in its judgment, this Court is of the opinion that when the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence against the accused-respondent and when PW.5, daughter of the appellant has specifically denied the allegation of abduction, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby dismissed.