Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2973 (RAJ)

MALA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-12-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
ORDER 1. The instant applicant under Section 378 (4) CrPC has been preferred by the applicant-complainant Mala Ram seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road in Sessions Case No. 12/2016, whereby the learned trial court convicted the respondent Roopa Ram for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.250/- on each count, but acquitted him from the charges under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. The instant leave to appeal application has been preferred seeking to assail the acquittal of the accused from the major charges under Section 307 and 325 IPC.I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 2. As per the prosecution allegations, Rama Ram, the first informant, lodged a report (Ex.P/12) at the Police Station Pindwara on 13.03.2016 alleging inter alia that on 10.03.2016 at 10 o'clock, he was grazing sheep as usual near the Malap Talab. Nearby him, Roopa Ram was also grazing his goats. At about 3 o'clock, his (informant's) father Mala Ram came to take stock of the herd. An altercation took place between Mala Ram and Roopa Ram, whereafter, Roopa Ram accosted Mala Ram and gave him numerous blows with a wire-strung lathi on the head and other body parts, due to which, he fell down. Even after Mala Ram had fallen down, Roopa Ram continued to assault him by lathi. Few people of Garasiya caste were working in the nearby fields, who came and saved the informant's father Mala Ram. The informant called his uncle Peera Ram, who came with Ranjeet Singh in a vehicle, on which the injured was boarded and was taken to the Pindwara Government Hospital, from where he was referred to the Abu Road Trauma Center. As the condition of Mala Ram was precarious, he was further referred to Mehsana and was got admitted there. 3. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.98/2016 came to be registered at the Police Station Pindwara for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 323 IPC. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the above offences and the offence under Section 325 IPC. 3. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.98/2016 came to be registered at the Police Station Pindwara for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 323 IPC. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the above offences and the offence under Section 325 IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents to prove its case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, but did not lead any evidence. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court came to a conclusion that the FIR was highly belated. The accused and the injured had no enmity whatsoever. No document pertaining to the treatment provided to the injured at the Trauma Center, Abu Raod and the Mehsana hospital were proved on record. The x-ray report of Pindwara hospital dated 16.03.2016 was proved in evidence as being that of the injured Mala Ram but the said report was held to be suspicious because as per the admitted case of the prosecution, the injured had remained admitted at the Mehsana hospital for 10 to 12 days after the incident. Thus, the trial court held that it was not possible for the injured to have been subjected to x-ray examination at Pindwara Government Hospital on 16.03.2016. The trial court also minutely noticed that though the x-ray bore the name Mala Ram, but the same was issued in relation to some other injury report No.646 dated 24.03.2016. Thus, the trial court concluded and rightly so in my opinion that the x-ray report was related to some other person and was not of Mala Ram at all. 5. Considering these material facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution could not prove by clinching cogent evidence that the injured Mala Ram received any grievous or life threatening injuries in the incident. Thus, the acquittal of the respondent-accused from the charges under Sections 307 and 325 IPC as recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 12.07.2017 is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference whatsoever. 6. As a consequence, the leave to appeal application fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.