Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2545 (RAJ)

Tola Ram Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-20

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2017
ORDER : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant cr. revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner Tola Ram under Section 396/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 255/2003 by which the learned trial court acquitted the non-petitioner No. 2 for offence under Section 302/120B and 120B IPC. 2. As per facts of the case on 21.1.2003 at about 2.00 am the complainant (PW-1) Tola Ram gave statement (Ex.P/1) in which it is stated by him that they are five brothers and out of five brothers Narayan and Hadmana Ram are elder brothers of him and other two Ram Lal and Prabhu Ram are younger brothers. It is also stated that all the five brothers are living separately in the village. Today I came from village Kitasar at 10 O' Clock and my sister-in-law informed me that his son Bhagwana Ram was playing ball after school hours. Along with Bhagwana Ram two other boys Shishpal and Manoj were also playing, at that time, Hari Ram son of her brother-in-law took Bhagwana Ram with him while saying that I am providing you toffees. According to Tulchha, Bhagwana Ram did not come back till night, therefore, inquiry was made by Madan Lal and Jagdish and found that near hut in the agricultural field of Sohan Ram, sleepers of Bhagwana Ram was lying there and upon opening the hut, the dead body of Bhagwana Ram was recovered. Upon inspection of dead body it is found that there were injuries upon the neck of throttling. The complainant raised suspicion against Hari Ram. According to the complainant, Hari Ram committed murder of Bhagwana Ram because wife of Hadmana Ram was having objection of theft committed by Hari Ram. 3. After registration of the FIR (Ex.P/11), investigation was commenced on the basis of last seen. The accused Hari Ram was arrested and upon information, pair of shoes were recovered andin the interrogation report, the accused Hari Ram stated that in the murder of Bhagwana Ram, Prabhu Ram has also accompanied him. 3. After registration of the FIR (Ex.P/11), investigation was commenced on the basis of last seen. The accused Hari Ram was arrested and upon information, pair of shoes were recovered andin the interrogation report, the accused Hari Ram stated that in the murder of Bhagwana Ram, Prabhu Ram has also accompanied him. Upon his information, one watch was also recovered and after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed on the basis of circumstantial evidence against accused Prabhu Ram under Section 302 and 120B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dungargarh from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner but later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 1, Bikaner for trial. The accused Hari Ram was minor, therefore, charge-sheet was filed against him in the Juvenile Board. 4. In the trial, statements of 14 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 11 documents were executed. The learned trial court after recording evidence of prosecution recorded statements of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in defence no oral evidence was produced, but six documents were exhibited in support of defence. 5. Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the learned trial court and vide judgment dated 11.11.2003, the respondent Prabhu Ram was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned trial court for acquittal of respondent Prabhu Ram is not sustainable in law because statement of prosecution witnesses have not been examined properly by the learned trial court. Further, it is submitted that there was threat of Prabhu Ram for killing Bhagwana Ram but this fact has not been considered by the learned trial court at the time of final adjudication. The learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him only on the basis of some contradiction in the statement of the witnesses, therefore, the instant cr. revision petition may kindly be accepted and the matter may be remitted back to the learned trial court for re-appreciation of the evidence and to pass fresh judgment. 7. The learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him only on the basis of some contradiction in the statement of the witnesses, therefore, the instant cr. revision petition may kindly be accepted and the matter may be remitted back to the learned trial court for re-appreciation of the evidence and to pass fresh judgment. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the entire prosecution case was based upon circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstance is proved by the prosecution, therefore, while appreciating the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court gave finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent vide impugned judgment dated 11.11.2003 in which there is no error. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence, so also, finding of the learned trial court. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence or eye witness in this case. The respondent Prabhu Ram was implicated in this case only on the basis of so called statement of accused Hari Ram and learned trial court while considering the statement of PW-1 Tola Ram, PW-2 Tulchhi, PW-4 Manoj Kumar, PW-5 Shishpal, PW-6 Hanuman, PW-7 Surja Ram, PW-8 Fula Ram, PW-9 Ram Chandra, PW-13 Ram Lal and PW-14 Manphool Singh gave finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. We have also perused the statements of all these witnesses coupled with the finding of the learned trial court. In our opinion, there is no iota of evidence against respondent Prabhu Ram except the one statement of PW-5 Shishpal that ^^[ksyrs le; gjhjke o izHkqjke vk;sA gjhjke us Hkxokukjke dks dgk fd py rsjs dks QkWd f[kykdj ykrk gwWA gjhjke Hkxokukjke dks ys x;kA** 10. In view of the above evidence, it is not a fit case to disturb the finding of the learned trial court or to remand the case for re-appreciation of evidence to the learned trial court because interference in re-visional jurisdiction is very limited. The learned trial court minutely examined the statements of all the witnesses and finally gave verdict that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The learned trial court minutely examined the statements of all the witnesses and finally gave verdict that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in this revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant against the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court in favour of the respondent Prabhu Ram 12. Hence, this cr. revision petition is hereby dismissed.