Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2604 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi D/o Prema Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-28

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. In this criminal leave to appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C by complainant/appellant-Smt. Shanti Devi, the judgment dated 21st of August, 2017 passed by learned counsel for the earned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, in Session Case No. 85/2017 (65/2015) is under challenge, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents No. 2 and 3 from the offence under Sections 302, 457, 397, 460 & 411 of IPC. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the F.I.R (Ex.P/1) was registered on 07.02.2015 on the basis of information furnished by complainant Smt. Shanti Devi (P.W.1) alleging, inter-alia, that she and her other siblings reside out of station while her mother, namely, Smt. Pepi, used to reside alone at their village. On the even date, at about 09.00 AM in the morning, she made a couple of calls to her mother on her mobile phone, however, the same were not responded. Therefore, she came to her village and on reaching her home, she found that Dhalki, Mohini and Shrawan Das were present there, they informed that her mother was not responding and thereafter, on entering her house, she and other people found her mother dead and there was visible marks of injury on her neck and blood was on her face. The complainant suspected that some unknown persons have illegally entered in her house and committed murder of her mother. 3. On this, the F.I.R No. 16/2015 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Pali under Section 460 of IPC and investigation was commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, the accused respondents No. 2 and 3 were arrested on the basis of circumstantial evidence of recovery of ornaments and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali for offence under Sections 457, 397, 460 & 411 of IPC. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing framed charges against the accused respondents under Section, 457, 397, 460 & 411 of IPC and commenced the trial. 5. In the trial, statements of 26 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 29 documents were exhibited in support of prosecution case. After recording evidence of prosecution, statements of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence five documents were exhibited. 6. 5. In the trial, statements of 26 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 29 documents were exhibited in support of prosecution case. After recording evidence of prosecution, statements of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence five documents were exhibited. 6. At the time of final arguments, an application was filed by the complainant under Section 216 & 464 Cr.P.C with a prayer to frame charge under Section 302 of IPC against the respondents and the said application was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2017 and charge under Section 302 of IPC was also framed against the accused respondents. 7. The learned trial court thereafter heard final arguments and after evaluating the evidence the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 21.08.2017 acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them while giving finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued that although there is no direct evidence but ornaments were recovered as per information given by the respondents but the trial court without considering this important aspect of the matter solely on the ground that no proceedings for identification of recovered ornaments was conducted, acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them, although investigating officer and other witnesses categorically proved that ornaments were recovered as per information given by the respondents. Therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is perverse and illegal. 9. According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is a fit case for granting leave to appeal. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the finding, so also, considered the fact that the entire case is based upon recovery of ornaments, but admittedly the alleged recovery of ornaments at the instance of accused respondents has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also very important aspect of the matter that no identification proceedings were conducted for the purpose of identification of the ornaments which is said to be belonging to deceased, Pepi Devi. No other evidence is on record to connect the accused respondents. In view of above, it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the judgment impugned. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.