Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 850 (RAJ)

Gumana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-09

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Batdhar, J. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1998 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case No. 372/1993 by which the respondents No 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 326 and 326/34 I.P.C. 3. As per brief fact, of the case, the complainant petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 13.7.1997 at Police station Balotra to the effect respondents No. 2 and 3 Bala Ram, Moola Ram and one Jora Ram obstructed the way of petitioner and with intention to snatch his earrings, was beaten by Moola Ram, Jora Ram and Bala Ram bit his ear and wounded him. It is alleged that the petitioner was rescued by Poonama and Lookha. 4. The police registered the F.I.R. for offence under Sections 394 and 323 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents for offences under Section 326/34 I.P.C. 5. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned Trial Court framed charges against accused Bala Ram and Moola Ram for offence under Sections 326 and 326/34 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents in support of their case. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against them however, no evidence was produced in their defence. 7. During the Trial Court, the petitioner complainant was also examined and his statements were also recorded by the Trial Court but remained incomplete. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of Evidence Act was filed by the petitioner for re-examination of the evidence of Gumana Ram. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 22.8.1998 acquitted the accused-respondents Bala Ram and Moola Ram for offences under Sections 326 and 326/34 I.P.C. 8. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents No. 2 and 3, the complainant petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 9. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents No. 2 and 3, the complainant petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Hurt has committed an error in rejecting the application under Sections 311 and 165 of Evidence Act and not granting opportunity of re-examination of the petitioner which was essential to arrive at just and proper decision of the case. It further argued that respondents are influential persons and he was stopped to resent himself before the Trial Court on the date fixed for examination, therefore, in the facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner for re-examination. 10. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution and the judgment passed by the Trial Court regarding acquittal of the respondents. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner complainant filed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after completion of the final arguments. Learned Trial Court is categorically observed that despite notice and bailable warrants, the Petitioner failed to appear before the Court and after a period of about two years, the petitioner filed the application for re-examination. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner was given ample opportunities by the Trial Court, thus, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 165 Evidence Act apparently seems to have been filed to fill the lacuna at the time final arguments of the case and since the evidence of PW-4 Gumana Ram was horded on 18.7.1996 and his examination-in-chief was complete, therefore, the said application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Further, this matter, on behalf of prosecution PW-1 Abu Khan, PW-3 Jora Ram and PW-9 Punama Ram denied the prosecution story and there is material contradiction the statement of PW-4 Gumana Ram, complainant as no over act of causing grievous injury has been specifically assigned to any accused persons. Thus, the earned Trial Court has legally analysed all the evidence on record and its finding with regard to the acquittal of respondents is found to be perfectly legitimate and just, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment of the lower Court. In view of above, this revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.