Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1004 (RAJ)

Rajaram v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-29

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2022
JUDGMENT Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 107/2020, Police Station Khuiyan, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offences under Section 302, 201 & 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place on 07.09.2020. Missing person report bearing No. 05/2020 was registered on 14.09.2020. F.I.R. was registered on 25.09.2020. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and his father consumed liquor. In interim report, name of accused petitioner as well as Kuldeep Meghwal was mentioned; but charge-sheet was filed only against the accused petitioner. Signature of the witness was not obtained by Investigating Officer on site plan. As per prosecution, CCTV footage is only available but the same is not available on record. As per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Subhash, accused-petitioner Raja Ram (brother-in-law of Chagganlal) and Suman (sister of Kuldeep) is married to accused-petitioner and were relatives. 4. As per statement of Ram Kumar, so far as, Raja Ram has informed to the complainant Subhash on 08.09.2020 that deceased was returned back from his home. As per statement of Rajji Ram another last seen witness, he saw the accused-petitioner is with deceased on 07.09.2020. His statement was earlier recorded on 10.10.2020 at 10:30 A.M. and in that statement he stated that he saw the accused-petitioner along with deceased at about 11:00 A.M. and in second statement of this witness was recorded on 25.11.2020 at 09:30 A.M. in which he stated that he saw the accused-petitioner along with the deceased at about 12:00 Noon. 5. It is further stated that statement of Subhash has been recorded as PW-1. During cross examination, he admitted that he only signed the documents and he had no complete knowledge of writing. He further admitted that information with regard to death of my father was received on 25.09.2020. Photograph of my father was seen on 25.09.2020 at 07:00 A.M. After seen photograph, we left to Ghaniyasar. We reached Ghaniyasar at between 09:00 to 09:15 A.M. In last of cross examination, he has admitted that before the above incident there is no dispute between my family and accused-petitioner Raja Ram @ Raju. Photograph of my father was seen on 25.09.2020 at 07:00 A.M. After seen photograph, we left to Ghaniyasar. We reached Ghaniyasar at between 09:00 to 09:15 A.M. In last of cross examination, he has admitted that before the above incident there is no dispute between my family and accused-petitioner Raja Ram @ Raju. As per statement of PW-5 Ram Kumar information was received on 24.09.2020 he was informed by Kana Ram and Subhash that dead body of deceased was found in an abandoned house of Pallu. It was further informed that deceased was murdered by accused petitioner. There is discrepancy in date on which date information was received, there was delay in filing the missing person report and FIR. It is further stated that the statement of another witness Rajji Ram reported as PW-7 stated during cross examination he admitted that another person was present along with deceased Lilu Ram. The Police was not visited that place along with him where he lastly seen the deceased Lilu Ram along with accused petitioner. It is further stated that there is no eye witness of this case. The accused petitioner is behind the bars since 26.09.2020 and further trial will take long time, therefore benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that CCTV footage are available on record; Pala Ram, Manphool and Rajji are last seen witnesses. Statements of Pala Ram, Manphool and Investigating Officer are yet to be recorded before the trial Court. 7. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that it was clearly mentioned in missing person report that prior to filing of that report, deceased was searched on prior address of all the relatives when no clue was found with regard to deceased; missing person report was filed on 14.09.2020. It is not a case of prosecution that when deceased was went to the residence of her aunt's (bua) house. He has informed that he will come back on such date. Date of return was not sure, therefore, delay in filing missing person report cannot vitiate the proceedings of the prosecution. So far as the another argument is concerned, there is LTI of witness Kana Ram on the site plan at Page No. 26 along with signature of accused petitioner Raja Ram. Date of return was not sure, therefore, delay in filing missing person report cannot vitiate the proceedings of the prosecution. So far as the another argument is concerned, there is LTI of witness Kana Ram on the site plan at Page No. 26 along with signature of accused petitioner Raja Ram. As per statement of complainant Subhash, there is motive for the offence. So far as variation of time in statement of Raji Ram regarding the last seen, no question was put up on behalf of the accused petitioner during cross examination in this regard. Admittedly, there is CCTV footage along with the certificate of 65 B of the evidence was submitted along with charge-sheet which shows that the involvement of the accused petitioner with the deceased. Statement of IO is not recorded, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.