Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1930 (RAJ)

Sohit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-04

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Mehta, J. - The appellant complainant Sohit Kumar has approached this Court by way of this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the Judgment dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.184/2017 (State vs. Ramesh & Ors.) whereby, the respondent No.2 Pankaj @ Pinkesh was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: 3. The appellant complainant Sohit Kumar (PW-3) lodged a written report (Ex.P/3) at the Police Station Kotwali Banswara on 04.09.2017 alleging inter alia that his agricultural land was located in the village Thikariya. His vehicles were parked there. The complainant's maternal uncle Laxman Singh (the deceased) used to stay there to guard the property. Two days earlier, the complainant's maternal aunt Saju Devi also came and started living with her husband Shri Laxman Singh. On 03.09.2017, in the night at about 11 O' Clock, Gopal, Ravji and others came to the appellant's house in Khanda Colony after having worked in the field. At about 11.17 pm., the complainant got a call from the mobile of her maternal aunt Saju Devi (No.8854971075) who informed the complainant that some thieves had beaten Shri Laxman Singh Ji up and that he was bleeding from the head. The complainant rushed to his field and saw Laxman Singh lying on the ground and he was profusely bleeding from the head and had expired. His aunt told him that she was sleeping inside the house whereas Laxman Singh was sleeping outside. On hearing some commotion from outside, she opened the door and saw two men assaulting Shri Laxman Singh with lathis and other weapons. She stepped out with a stick and on seeing her, the assailants escaped. On the basis of this report, FIR No.379/2017 (Ex.P/34) for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. The dead body of Laxman Singh was subjected to postmortem. The respondent No.2 Pankaj @ Pinkesh and so also the co-accused Dileep and Ramesh were arrested. A knife and a shirt were recovered at the instance of the accused Ramesh; iron Tammy was recovered at the instance of the accused Dileep and a lathi was recovered at the instance of the accused Pankaj. The respondent No.2 Pankaj @ Pinkesh and so also the co-accused Dileep and Ramesh were arrested. A knife and a shirt were recovered at the instance of the accused Ramesh; iron Tammy was recovered at the instance of the accused Dileep and a lathi was recovered at the instance of the accused Pankaj. Charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused after concluding investigation. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, found that the weapons and the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused Dileep and Ramesh tested positive for presence of human blood which was found on the shirt of the deceased and the blood stained soil recovered from the place of the incident. First time identification of the two accused Ramesh and Dileep by Saju Devi (PW-4) in her sworn testimony, was considered to be reliable and acting thereupon, these two accused were convicted whereas Pankaj, who was apprehended in this case solely on the basis of the recovery of the lathi on which no blood was found, was acquitted. The complainant appellant Sohit Kumar has now approached this Court through this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the acquittal of the respondent No.2 Pankaj @ Pinkesh. 4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Shambhoo Singh Rathore representing the appellant complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor and, have gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record. 5. Suffice it to say, the case of prosecution as against the respondent No.2 Pankaj is based on the sole circumstance of recovery of lathi. As per the FIR and the testimony of the sole eye-witness Saju Devi (PW-4), she saw two persons beating the deceased Laxman Singh. Apparently, the prosecution has tried to identify and impose the responsibility of the convicted accused Ramesh and Dileep as the two assailants. A subsequent theory was portrayed in the testimony of Subhash Labana (PW-5) that Pankaj was hiding behind the building at the time of the incident. However, Saju Devi (PW-4) did not make any such assertion in her evidence. Apparently, the prosecution has tried to identify and impose the responsibility of the convicted accused Ramesh and Dileep as the two assailants. A subsequent theory was portrayed in the testimony of Subhash Labana (PW-5) that Pankaj was hiding behind the building at the time of the incident. However, Saju Devi (PW-4) did not make any such assertion in her evidence. It may be stated here that neither the lathi recovered at the instance of the acquitted accused Pankaj nor the weapons recovered at the instance of the convicted accused Dileep and Ramesh, gave conclusive test regarding presence of a particular blood group so as to hold that these weapons were stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased Laxman Singh. Apparently thus, there is no tangible evidence worth the name of the record of the case so as to connect the respondent Pankaj @ Pinkesh with the offences. The trial court was perfectly justified in discarding the prosecution case and acquitting the respondent Pankaj @ Pinkesh by the impugned Judgment. Therefore, we find no reason to admit this victim's appeal preferred by the appellant complainant Sohit Kumar. Hence, the same is dismissed as being devoid of merit.