Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 401 (RAJ)

Unkar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J —By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 7.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.26/2014 whereby the learned trial Judge directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Gautam lodged a complaint in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 16.11.2009 alleging inter-alia that the accused Onkar, Jeevani, Jhamku, Lalu, Ramju and Prabhu Lal murdered his wife Smt.Kali Bai on 1.10.2009 after conspiring amongst themselves. His wife had gone to take care of his goats at his agricultural field and her dead body was found in the well, the next morning. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons were carrying enmity with the complainant and his wife owing to some land dispute. The accused persons forcibly dug a well on the land of the complainant and also constructed a house thereupon. They threatened the complainant's wife that she would be killed. Numerous injuries were seen on the dead body of Smt.Kali. On 16.11.2009, when the complainant was going to his house from his well, the accused Prabhu and Ramju accosted him and threatened that he should leave the village or else he would meet the same fate which had been befallen his wife, who had been killed by them. The complainant alleged that he had lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh on 27.10.2009 but no action was taken thereupon. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Pratapgarh for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where F.I.R. No.133/2009 was registered and investigation commenced. After conclusion of investigation, a negative Final Report was submitted in the court concerned. The learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who directed framing of charge against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. by the order dated 7.8.2015 which is challenged in this revision. 3. Shri Rahul Bathi learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie there is no material worth in the name on entire record so as to connect the petitioners with the alleged murder of Smt.Kali. 3. Shri Rahul Bathi learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie there is no material worth in the name on entire record so as to connect the petitioners with the alleged murder of Smt.Kali. The complaint was filed by the complainant Gautam on 16.11.2009 i.e. after more than 1 months of the incident. He urged that even in this belated complaint, apart from a vague allegation against the accused Prabhu and Ramju that they threatened the complainant of dire consequences if he did not leave the property and go away from the village, there is hardly any material or evidence which could justify framing of charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He contended that the learned trial court was totally unjustified in drawing conjectural inferences from the circumstances noticed at the well from where, the dead body of Smt.Kali was recovered without prejudice to the argument that the death was accidental, he contended that even if it is assumed that the death of Smt.Kali was homicidal, then too, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to point out that the accused petitioners were responsible for the alleged murder of Smt.Kali. He contended that the charge could not have been framed against the accused petitioners on mere conjectures and surmises and implored the Court to quash the impugned order while accepting revision. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Rakesh Arora the learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They contended that the accused party was enmical to the complainant owing to a long standing land dispute. The complainant and his wife were often threatened of dire consequences by the accused that in case they did not vacate the disputed land and leave the village then they could be assassinated. As per them, these facts present a strong evidence of motive, which is sufficient to justify the order framing charge. They thus craved rejection of the revision. 5. I have appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the record. 6. It is virtually an admitted position as spelt out from the record that there is no direct evidence whatsoever so as to connect the petitioners with the alleged murder of Smt.Kali. 5. I have appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the record. 6. It is virtually an admitted position as spelt out from the record that there is no direct evidence whatsoever so as to connect the petitioners with the alleged murder of Smt.Kali. The dead body of Smt.Kali was recovered from a well on 2.10.2009 whereafter inquest proceedings were conducted. During the inquest proceedings, the first informant Gautam categorically stated that no marks of injury were noticeable on the body of his wife Smt.Kali. No suspicion was cast by any witness examined during the inquest proceedings regarding the death of Smt.Kali. 7. The complainant allegedly lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh on 27.10.2009 in which, he pointed a sword of suspicion towards the accused alleging that they had absconded from the village after the body was recovered. In the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that the accused persons had taken possession of his land and had constructed a house thereupon and had also dug a well therein. In this background and since, the accused were in possession of the disputed land long before the incident, they cannot be attributed the motive to kill the complainant or his wife. Evidently, the complainant had not taken any legal action against the so-called trespass committed by the accused on his land. The complainant's allegation that the two accused Prabhu and Ramju met him on 8.11.2009 and made an extra judicial confession that they had killed Smt.Kali and also extended a threat that he too would be killed appears to be a sheer prevarication because the complainant did not take any prompt legal action even after this so-called confession combined with threat uttered by the accused to him and filed the complaint as late as on 16.11.2009. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court directed framing of charge against the petitioners vide the impugned order for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on mere conjectures and surmises. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court directed framing of charge against the petitioners vide the impugned order for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on mere conjectures and surmises. The order framing charge does not stand to scrutiny even for a moment and cannot be sustained because there is not even an iota of evidence available on record against the accused persons so as to put them up for trial for the grave charge of murder. 9. As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 7.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.26/2014 whereby, charge was framed against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and all consequential proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed and set aside.