Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 53 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh

2016-01-08

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, P.K.LOHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant Cr. appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 11.12.1993 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 20/1992 whereby the learned trial court acquitted by the respondents from the charges levelled under Section 364, 302, 302/34 and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per brief facts of the case, upon information received on 18.9.1991 at about 8.30 at Police Station Napasar, PW - 12 Ramesh Kumar, Head Constable went at the village Kalyansar he has Kumar recorded the statement (Ex.P/1) of complainant PW - 1 Smt. Akhi in which it was alleged by the complainant that her husband and his two brothers Kistura Ram and Narayan Ram are living in one premises, but having different houses. On 17.9.1991 in the evening at about 8.00 pm when he was sitting on the cot in the house and she was preparing food in kitchen, Ram Singh S/o Mool Singh and Sumandar Singh S/o Kishan Singh came and asked her husband to go outside for gossiping. The complainant asked her husband to take meal first thereafter go outside but they did not care and asked Jetha Ram to go along with them. 3. It is stated by the complainant that at that time Govind Singh and others were standing near Falsa and her two sister-in-laws and nephew of her husband Mohan were present at home. 4. According to the complaint her husband Jetha Ram gone outside the house along with the appellants and did not come back in the late night, therefore, a suspicion was created in her mind that accused persons must have done something wrong with her husband. In the complaint it is submitted that there was enmity between them and Kishan Singh with regard to Bada in the village and for the same, so many times, quarrel took place with her husband Jetha Ram. The complainant Akhi got information that her husband is lying dead near tank of the village. Upon that information she went immediately on the place. In the FIR suspicion was raised that her husband might have been killed by Samundar Singh, Govind Singh, Ram Singh & others. Upon statement of Smt. Akhi FIR no. The complainant Akhi got information that her husband is lying dead near tank of the village. Upon that information she went immediately on the place. In the FIR suspicion was raised that her husband might have been killed by Samundar Singh, Govind Singh, Ram Singh & others. Upon statement of Smt. Akhi FIR no. 74 was registered on 18.9.1991 under Section 302 and 34 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. 5. After completion of investigation on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen, the respondents were arrested and produced before the court, thereafter investigating officer conducted thorough investigation and after completion of investigation filed challan in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner from where case was committed to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Atrocities Act Cases-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner for trial. 6. For the purpose of framing charge, arguments were heard by the learned trial court and on the basis of prosecution evidence, the charges were framed against the respondents under Section 302 and 364 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but the respondents denied the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 7. The learned trial court provided an opportunity to the prosecution to produce their evidence and 13 witnesses were examined from the prosecution side including author of the FIR. The statements of the respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court, but in spite of granting opportunity to produce evidence in defence, no witness was examined from defence side. 8. The learned trial court after hearing arguments of both the sides acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them while giving benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 11.12.1993. The judgment of the learned trial court dated 11.12.1993 is under challenge in this Cr. appeal. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the police filed challan on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen and to prove the fact of last seen statements of two witnesses namely PW - 1 Akhi wife of the deceased and PW - 4 Mohan were recorded in which both the witnesses categorically stated before the court on oath that deceased Jetha Ram was asked by the respondents to go with them for gossiping in the night, but in the morning the dead body of Jetha Ram was found near the water tank of the village. 10. 10. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the fact of last seen is proved by leading trustworthy evidence, but the learned trial court disbelieved their testimony on erroneous grounds, therefore, the said finding of the learned trial court in the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading trustworthy evidence and in the trial statement of PW - 6 Dr. Arvind Vyas were recorded who performed the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Jetha Ram in which it is categorically stated by him that death of Jetha Ram is homicidal death because injuries found upon the body of the deceased were ante-mortem and were capable for being caused by piece of glass bottles, therefore, there is connecting evidence on record, which completes the chain of circumstances so as to hold respondents guilty for offence but unfortunately, the learned trial court committed a grave error while disbelieving the evidence of last seen and the fact that death of Jetha Ram was homicidal death, so also, the injuries found upon the body of the deceased Jetha Ram were ante-mortem in nature. While inviting attention towards the fact that in the investigation, one bottle of broken glass was recovered upon information given by respondent Govind Singh, upon which blood was found and investigating officer seized said broken bottle vide Ex.P/10 in front of eye witness Dhanna Ram. As per prosecution case prosecution led trustworthy evidence to connect respondents with the crime, but the learned trial judge gave erroneous finding so as to acquit the accused respondents. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly argued that investigating officer conducted through investigation and after recover of articles, the recovered articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination to ascertain the fact whether the blood was found upon the cloths and pieces of glass or not. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly argued that investigating officer conducted through investigation and after recover of articles, the recovered articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination to ascertain the fact whether the blood was found upon the cloths and pieces of glass or not. In the report vide Ex.P/20, the FSL Rajasthan, Jaipur gave its report that group of blood stained on exhibits noted below could not be determined for the reason that upon Ex.P/4 the stained were not sufficient for test and reason for not determination of the origin of stained over Ex.P/5 was that it was disintegrated, however, in the FSL report upon Ex.P/1, P/2 and P/3 i.e., Kurta, Kamiz and Dhoti the human blood was found, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have considered the fact that blood was found upon the cloths of deceased, therefore, the judgment of acquittal of respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents no person will go out with strangers and in this case, obviously, Jetha Ram went out along with the respondents upon asking, therefore, there was no question of enmity in between them. It is also argued that mere evidence of last seen the respondents cannot be convicted because there is no material evidence to connect the respondent with the crime is available on record. In this case, no weapon is recovered from the respondents and as per the statements of PW - 6 Dr. Arvind Vyas the injuries found upon the body of the deceased Jetha Ram were lacerated wounds. None of the injuries was incised wounds, therefore, recovery of piece of glass bottle is not sufficient prove for allegation of murder, therefore, learned trial court after assessing the evidentiary value of entire evidence in right perspective acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that none of the injuries found upon the body of Jetha Ram were incised wound. No blood stained weapon was recovered from upon information of any of the respondents. More so, as per the prosecution case, some pieces of glass bottle were recovered upon those no blood was found. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that none of the injuries found upon the body of Jetha Ram were incised wound. No blood stained weapon was recovered from upon information of any of the respondents. More so, as per the prosecution case, some pieces of glass bottle were recovered upon those no blood was found. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them while holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case against them, therefore, the instant appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan may kindly be dismissed. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have examined the entire evidence produced by the prosecution in support of allegation against the respondent. 15. Admittedly, in this case, there is no eye witness, so also, there is no material and trustworthy evidence on record with regard to motive and intention of the respondents to commit offence. The only allegation is made by PW - 1 Smt. Akhi that there was dispute with regard to Bada with one Ishar Singh, but Ishar Singh is not accused in the case. The following allegations are made by the complainant PW - 1 Smt. Akhi in her statement that:- ^^eqyfteku dk esjs ifr dk >kSM+ Fkk ckM+s ds lEcU/k esa Fkk blfy;s ys x;sA eq>s iwjk irk ugha gSA D;ksafd bl >kSM+ dh ckcr iq:"kksa dks irk FkkA** 16. But in the statement (Ex.P/1) dated 18.9.1991 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Smt. Akhi categorcially stated that:- ^^xkao esa gekjs ,d ckM+k dks dCts dks ysdj fd'kuflag jktiwr ls iqjkuk fookn gS esjs ifr ds lkFk fd'kuflag oxSjk dk blh fookn dks ysdj vkil esa dbZ ckj rw rw eSa eSa o ekjihV Hkh gks pqdh gSA** 17. Upon perusal of above allegations made by PW - 1 Smt. Akhi soon after the occurrence in the written complaint enmity was with one Ishar Singh and not against the respondents, but in the statements before the court allegations are made against the respondents. 18. After considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that no prudent man will go with any person outside the house with whom enmity is in existence. 18. After considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that no prudent man will go with any person outside the house with whom enmity is in existence. In this case, as per the FIR itself, two respondents Ram Singh and Samundar Singh came in the house of the deceased Jetha Ram and asked him to go with them for gossiping, but no objection was raised by her. More so, it was asked by her that after taking meal, you may go with them. This fact itself shows that no quarrel took place in the house of complainant. The deceased Jetha Ram went out without any objection with the respondents, therefore, such type of evidence cannot be treated to be an evidence of last seen so as to convict the respondents for offence of murder. We have considered the medical evidence and finding of trial court that in the post mortem report Ex.P/8 although injuries were found upon the body of the deceased but none of the injuries were incised wound and as per prosecution case the broken bottle of glass was recovered vide Ex.P/10 in front of witness PW - 7 Dhanna Ram and in view of the above, it is apparently clear that recovery of the alleged pieces of bottle of glass cannot be treated as an evidence so as to held the respondents guilty for alleged offence, therefore it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of so called recovery of glasses. 19. We have perused the statement of PW - 6 Dr. Arvind Vyas. The said witness categorically stated before the court that upon examination of the body of the deceased 6 injuries were found but none of the injury was incised wounds, therefore, the recovery of pieces of bottle of glass is not relevant so as to connect the respondents with the alleged crime. 20. In view of the evidence on record it is obvious that prosecution has miserably failed to establish any case against the respondents because as per statement of complainant PW-1 Smt. Akhi, deceased Jetha Ram went out from the house upon asking by the respondents and except the said statement no other evidence is on record to establish that any motive was there to commit offence of murder of deceased. 21. 21. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the finding given by the learned trial court by which the respondents were acquitted. 22. Consequently, the instant Cr. Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 11.12.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 20/1992 is hereby dismissed.