Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2544 (RAJ)

Ram Chander Patel v. Appa Rao @ Shiva

2017-11-20

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2017
ORDER : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the judgment dated 05th of January, 1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Session Case No. 243/1992, whereby the accused respondents No. 1 to 6 were acquitted from the offence sunder Sections 394/34, 387/34 & 302/34 of I.P.C. As per facts of the case, petitioner/complainant, Ramchander lodged a complaint against six accused persons before the S.H.O., Police Station, Lohariya, on 21.07.1990 at 6'O clock in the evening. In the complaint it was averred that named accused respondents abducted his son-Ramesh Patel for ransom of Rs. 37,000/- on 15.07.1990 at 04.30 PM while he was going along with his wife from his village to Mota gaon. The accused persons took his son, Ramesh in a jeep forcibly and thereafter demanded ransom, else they would kill his son. However, his son Ramesh was murdered and dead body of Ratam Patel (son of the complainant) was found on 18.07.1990 between Railway Station Maroli-Sachin. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and the dead body of the deceased was handed over for cremation. 2. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banswara, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge but later on the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara for trial. 3. In the trial, after recording the evidence of prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court finally acquitted the accused respondents No. 1 to 6 from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 05.01.1998. 4. In the instant criminal revision, the judgment impugned is under challenge on the ground that the trial court has failed to appreciate the entire evidence in right perspective. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, accused respondents abducted the son of the complainant, Ramesh Patel, whose married was solemnized in the month of June, 1990 at Udaipur. As per allegations on 15.07.1996, respondents abducted the son of the petitioner and took him away in a jeep and demanded ransom from the complainant and his family members. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, accused respondents abducted the son of the complainant, Ramesh Patel, whose married was solemnized in the month of June, 1990 at Udaipur. As per allegations on 15.07.1996, respondents abducted the son of the petitioner and took him away in a jeep and demanded ransom from the complainant and his family members. As per allegations of prosecution, deceased was murdered on account of non-payment of ransom and thereafter the dead body of deceased was found on 18.07.1990 at railway station. The police on the basis of circumstantial evidence filed charge sheet and all the circumstances were proved by leading reliance evidence but the trial court without appreciating the evidence collected by the investigating agency, acquitted the respondents from the charges. It is thus prayed that this revision petition may kindly be accepted and the judgment impugned be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the trial court for fresh decision. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the judgment impugned. The learned trial court framed four points for adjudication of the case, which reads thus: **1-- eqyfteku us fnukad 15--7--90 dks e`Rrd jes’k iVsy dh gR;k djus dh fu;r ls lkekU; vk’k; cukdj mldk vigj.k fd;k\ 2-- ;g fd eqyfteku us jkepUnz ls mlds iq= Jh jes’k dh gR;kk dh@e`R;q dk Hk; fn[kkdj mn~nkfir dj jde yh\ 3-- ;g fd eqyfteku us fnukaad 15 ls 18 rkjh[k ds vklikl ejksyh&lphu jsYos LVs’ku ds chp lkekU; vk’k; cukdj mls vxzsflr djrs gq, e`Rrd jes’k dh gRR;k dj mls iVfj;ksaa ij Mky fn;k ;k pyrh Vsªu ls gRR;k djus dh fu;r ls /kDdkns fn;kA bl izdkj jes’k dh gRR;k dh\ 4-- mijksDr lHkkh ;k dksbZ vijk/k ;fn laansg ls ijs lHkkh ;k fdlh eqyfte ds fo:) lkfcr gkss tk; rks eqyfteku@eqyfte ds fy, mi;qDr n.M D;k gksxk\^^ 7. During course of arguments no satisfactory grounds were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, which requires re-appreciation of evidence. 8. Upon perusal of the revision petition also, it is revealed that no grounds are raised so as to disbelieve the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal. The only argument was made that appreciation of evidence is not proper, but as to how and why appreciation is illegal or not acceptable, has not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The only argument was made that appreciation of evidence is not proper, but as to how and why appreciation is illegal or not acceptable, has not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In view of above, we are of the opinion that in absence of valid ground, it cannot be said that the trial court has failed to appreciate the entire evidence in right perspective. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused respondents and the dead body was found in between the railway station and after postmortem dead body was cremated. Therefore, there is no question to accept this revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant so as to remand the case for re-appreciation of evidence and fresh decision. 10. Consequently, the present criminal revision is found to be devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed.