Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2123 (RAJ)

Rami Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2017
JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant cr. revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rami Devi W/o late Sh. Ramkaran under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 27.6.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 48/2001 (53/1997) whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the offences under Sections 323, 324, 447 and 302 IPC and in alternative under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. As per facts of the case the deceased Ramkaran gave written report at Police Station Jayal on 28.8.1997 at 2.30 pm alleging therein that today at about 10 am when he was looking after the crop of Bajra and Moong in my agricultural field situated on the way of village Jakhan, at that time, the accused Rampal, his won Akha Ram, his wife Baori and daughter Sarda came there having weapon Parsi, Spear (Bhala) and Kassis in their hands and they attacked upon him. According to the complainant, the respondent Rampal gave Parsi blow on his head and Akharam gave spear blow and due to those injuries he fell down on the ground and, thereafter, all of them gave him beating mercilessly. Upon raising hue and cry, one Ganesh Ram S/o Moti Ram and Hari Ram S/o Kana Ram who were going to their agricultural field came and intervened then accused respondent ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he was taken to Jayal for treatment along with Jeetu Ram. 3. Upon aforesaid report, FIR No. 78/97 was registered at Police Station Jayal against respondents under Section 447, 323 and 324 IPC and investigation was commenced. During the pendency of the investigation, Ramkaran died, therefore offence under Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR. 4. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against respondents in the court of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Jayal from where case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur for trial. Another charge-sheet was filed against juvenile Akha Ram in the Children's Court, Ajmer for offence under Section 447, 323, 324 and 302 IPC for the same charge where trial was conducted separately. 5. The case was further transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur for trial. The learned trial court after trial, acquitted all the respondents from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 27.6.2002. 5. The case was further transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Nagaur for trial. The learned trial court after trial, acquitted all the respondents from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 27.6.2002. The instant revision petition has been filed by wife Rami Devi of late Ram Karan so as to challenge the judgment dated 27.6.2002. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding recorded by the learned trial court in the judgment impugned is totally erroneous because there is ample evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the respondents. It is further argued that death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding but nowhere stated that injuries were not serious in nature, therefore, the learned trial court has erroneously held that PW-18 Dr. Tulsi Ram who has conducted post mortem did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court did not consider medical evidence on record in right perspective. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned trial court has not appreciated the entire evidence produced and led by the prosecution in its entirety and failed to consider the material evidence on record, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and matter is required to be remitted to the learned trial court for re-appreciating the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the fact that death of Ramkaran was out come of the role played by the respondents but the learned trial court miserably failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and disbelieved the defence story of alibi without considering the fact that the plea of alibi is a weak type of evidence, therefore, it is a case in which finding arrived at by the learned trial court for acquittal of respondents deserves to be quashed and matter is required to be sent back to the learned trial court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them whereas accused Akha Ram show as juvenile was held guilty by the Children's Court, Ajmer upon the same evidence, therefore, matters requires reconsideration by the learned trial court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them whereas accused Akha Ram show as juvenile was held guilty by the Children's Court, Ajmer upon the same evidence, therefore, matters requires reconsideration by the learned trial court. No other ground is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner but submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and matter may be remitted to the learned trial court for re-appreciation of evidence so as to convict the respondents for the offences committed by them. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the appearing for the respondents submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to acquit the respondents from the charges levelled against them because the investigating officer Umaid Singh did not appear before the court and name of the eye witness Sukhdev Singh was not even mentioned in the FIR. Further it is submitted that the learned trial court held that Jitu Ram is the real brother of the deceased and therefore, there is no question to remit the case for re-appreciation of evidence. The learned trial court gave the finding that no independent witness gave statement in support of prosecution case. The witness Tulsa Ram is the only eye witness, but the said witness turned hostile, therefore, the respondents are entitled to be acquitted form the charges levelled against them. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire evidence has been considered properly by the learned trial court, therefore, prayer of the petitioner to remand the case back for re-appreciation of evidence deserves to be rejected. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we have perused the finding of learned trial court and entire evidence on record. Admittedly, the learned trial court considered the evidence of independent eye witnesses and two other witnesses Hari Ram and Ganesh Ram and held that these witnesses are close relatives of the complainant party and there is no strength in their statements so as to connected the respondents with the crime. The learned trial court specifically observed that investigating officer Umaid Singh did not appear before the court so as to support the prosecution case. None of the document of investigation is proved by the prosecution. The learned trial court specifically observed that investigating officer Umaid Singh did not appear before the court so as to support the prosecution case. None of the document of investigation is proved by the prosecution. Further observed that eye witness Sukhdev Singh though made allegation but his name is not even mentioned in the FIR. The learned trial court disbelieved the testimony of eye witnesses because they are close relatives of complainant party and acquitted the respondents while giving them benefit of doubt. 12. In our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the entire evidence and extending benefit of doubt to the accused respondents on the ground that whole investigation has not been proved by the prosecution because the investigating officer did not appear before the court so as to prove the investigation. 13. In view of the above discussion and upon the fact that scope of revision is very limited, therefore, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to remit this case for re-appreciation of evidence to the trial court because in the impugned judgment the trial court has examined the entire evidence in its entirety and gave finding of acquittal. 14. Hence, this cr. revision petition is hereby dismissed.