Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1224 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Lakhan Singh

2019-04-24

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.22/2016 whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 342 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:- Budhram (P.W.2) lodged a written report (Ex.P4) to the SHO, P.S. Pilibanga on 14.07.2011 alleging inter alia that the marriage of two grand-daughters of his uncle Mangtu Ram R/o 34 STG was to be solemnized on 12.07.2011. The barat had come from Village Bhagsar. His brother-in-law Brij Lal was also present in the marriage. The baratis consumed liquor and started quarrelling with each other. His brother Harikishan had heated arguments with Rajveer, Kashi Ram, Lakhan Singh, Ramswaroop and Rameshwar all residents of Bhagsar. Thereafter, Rajveer, Kashi Ram, Lakhan Singh and Ramswaroop took their car and went towards the bridge of 34 STG. At about 5 O'clock, Harikishan's brother-in-law, Rameshwar Lal took him into his confidence while breeding an evil design in his mind. He took Harikishan to the bridge and made him to sit in the car in which, Rajveer and others were already present. Rameshwar Lal himself went away towards 26 PBN. Harikishan did not return home on which, his nephew Ramswaroop went to look out for him towards Pilibanga. In the night, at about 2 O'clock, Ramswaroop saw Harikishan outside the Barad Hotel. Harikishan complained him that Rameshwar Lal had fraudulently taken him on the motorcycle and handed him over to Rajveer, Kashi Ram, Lakhan Singh and Ramswaroop who boarded him on to their car and assaulted him by fists and kicks on his abdomen. They drove the car around. He raised a hue and cry on which, he was brought and dropped off at the Barad Hotel. The Police intervened and saved him. Ramswaroop took Harikishan back to his home at 12 STB. In the morning of 13.07.2011, Harikishan started complaining of pain in abdomen because of the blows given to him on which, Brij Lal, Ramswaroop and Harikishan's son Basant took him to the Government Hospital, Pilibanga for treatment. He was referred to the Hanumangarh Government Hospital where, his treatment continued. In the evening, at about 6 O'clock, Harikishan was referred to Bikaner. He was referred to the Hanumangarh Government Hospital where, his treatment continued. In the evening, at about 6 O'clock, Harikishan was referred to Bikaner. He expired on the way on which, Brij Lal intimated the first informant of this unfortunate turn of events. 3. On the basis of the report, an F.I.R. No.294/2011 (Ex.P5) was registered at the Police Station Pilibanga for the offences under Sections 302, 342 and 143 I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Rajveer, Lakhan Singh and Ramswaroop for the offences under Sections 302, 343 and 34 I.P.C. Since the case was Sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh from where, it was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and got 14 documents exhibited in support of its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegations, claimed to be innocent and stated that a false case had been foisted against them. Four documents were exhibited but no oral evidence was led in defence. The Trial Court, while concluding the matter, took note of the fact that Harikishan himself gave a statement (Ex.D4) on 13.07.2011 to the officers of the Police Station Pilibanga wherein, he only alleged that he was having a perception of threat to his life at the hands of the accused. In this statement, there was no allegation whatsoever that the accused had assaulted Harikishan on the previous night. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that an application (Ex.D3) under Section 107-116 read with Section 151 Cr.P.C. was registered at the Police Station Pilibanga a day before lodging of the F.I.R. in which, there is no allegation whatsoever that the accused assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased. The accused were arrested in relation to that complaint on 13.11.2011 vide arrest memo Ex.P3 and in these proceedings, all that has been mentioned is that the accused were showing an offensive intent. The accused were arrested in relation to that complaint on 13.11.2011 vide arrest memo Ex.P3 and in these proceedings, all that has been mentioned is that the accused were showing an offensive intent. Relying on these important/significant documents amongst which, the statement of Harikishan (Ex.D4) dated 13.07.2011 was of prime importance, the trial Court held that the allegations set out in the belated F.I.R. dated 14.07.2011 that the accused assaulted the deceased by fist and kick blows in the night intervening 12.07.2011 and 13.07.2011 stood falsified from the material omissions and contradictions existing inter-se between the F.I.R., the sworn testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses and the statement of the deceased himself as well as the complaint lodged under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C. on 13.07.2011. Considering these omissions, improvements and embellishments to be material and going to the root of the matter, the trial Court proceeded to acquit the accused of the charges. 4. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, we are of the firm opinion that the trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner and rightly acquitted the accused of the charges. 5. The impugned judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein. 6. As a consequence of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected.