Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1528 (RAJ)

Satya Narain v. State

2022-05-12

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment, dated 09.07.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara acquitting the respondents no. 2 to 7, in Sessions Case No. 2/2001 with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and after perusal set aside the order of acquittal, remand the case to the lower court or pass any other orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/petitioner filed an F.I.R. bearing No. 198/1996, at the Police Station, Hamirgarh, Bhilwara stating therein that his elder brother Gopal was engaged as a labourer/Class IV at Sangam Spinner, Hamirga and that allegations of theft were levelled against his brother and the security officer of the Mill. And that the officers, namely; Narendra Kumar, Chandmal, S.N. Mathur and Ashok Kumar i.e. respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 6 respectively, allegedly locked his brother in a room in the factory, threatened and beat him up, and tortured him. And that, ultimately his brother committed suicide. And that, the police authorities registered a case for the offences under Sections 306, 330, 342 and 120-B I.P.C. and that subsequently a charge sheet was filed for the above mentioned offences, and also for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. pursuant to which the learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons; however, after trial, acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial court has seriously erred in acquitting the accused, respondents no. 2 to 7 for the offences under aforementioned provisions of law, especially since the ingredients of the said offences were clearly made out by the prosecution through the evidences placed on record before the learned trial court. 2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned Court below has overlooked the key testimony of PW-10 Durga Devi, the wife of the deceased victim, wherein she stated that the security officer, respondent no. 4, had come to her residence and asked her to send her husband (deceased) to the Mill. And that, the respondent no. 2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned Court below has overlooked the key testimony of PW-10 Durga Devi, the wife of the deceased victim, wherein she stated that the security officer, respondent no. 4, had come to her residence and asked her to send her husband (deceased) to the Mill. And that, the respondent no. 5, Banwarilal also visited their residence and inquired about her husband’s whereabouts, and that even respondents no. 2 and 6 also visited their house. And that, on 20.10. 1996, she and her husband had gone to a temple, when the respondents no. 5, Banwarilal and Yashpal took them to Sangam Spinners Mill. And that thereafter, they were taken to the house of respondent no. 4 and taken into a room, where they were questioned and then threatened when they did not comply. And that, she was left off but the deceased was taken away by Yashpal and Banwarilal. And that he was subsequently found dead in the factory, having passed away by suicide, after consuming acid. 2.3 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has also erred in finding that the involvement and acts committed by the respondent no. 4 does not constitute ‘abetment of suicide’ since it is evident from the face of the record that he threatened the deceased victim and his wife, and held them in his house. 2.4 Learned counsel further submits that a prima facie case is made out, under the aforementioned offences, against the accused and that the following circumstances were laid before the learned Court below; that the deceased was confined in the room of the Mill under guard, the deceased was administered/consumed acid which was found in the Mill; that the deceased vomited and the traces of the same were collected; that the body of the deceased was found in the room in the Mill and; that there was no other motive or reason for the deceased to have died by suicide, except due to the fear instilled and threats made to him by the accused at whose instance he was brought to the mill. 2.5 Learned counsel also submits that the post mortem report also reveals that the body of the deceased reveals signs of beating and abrasions; when the body of the deceased was found, his clothes were blood stained; the respondent no. 2.5 Learned counsel also submits that the post mortem report also reveals that the body of the deceased reveals signs of beating and abrasions; when the body of the deceased was found, his clothes were blood stained; the respondent no. 4, the security officer of the Mill directed one Sarwan Kumar to clean the vomit from the room in which the deceased was detailed illegally and the bottle of the acid was also found in the room of respondent no. 4 at the Mill and produced before the police, at Ex. P4, by Sarwan Kumar, PW-7 and that PW-14 and 15 corroborate the testimony of Durga Devi. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and after appreciating the evidences placed on the record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has framed issues and dealt with each issue, in arriving at the conclusion of acquittal of the accused, in the following manner. 4.1 That a perusal of the evidences placed on record before it revealed that PW-1 Puran Singh, who was employed as the head guard in the mill, stated that on the date of the alleged incident he was on duty at the mill from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. the next day, and that the respondent no. 4 in fact, did not come to the mill on the day in question and that the deceased-victim was in fact on the premises of the mill, and that he did not notice anything untoward with respect to the deceased-victim. 4.2 That PW-6, Baen Singh, turned hostile, and recanted from his earlier testimony and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the deceased victim was illegally detained in the mill against his will. 4.3 That from a perusal of the evidences, there was nothing that pointed towards the allegations made that the accused tortured the deceased victim. 4.4 That the ingredients for the offence under Section 330 I.P.C. are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither are they supported by any evidence. Similarly, neither is there anything on the record to suggest that there was abetment to suicide by any of the accused, nor was there conspiracy of any kind either. 4.4 That the ingredients for the offence under Section 330 I.P.C. are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither are they supported by any evidence. Similarly, neither is there anything on the record to suggest that there was abetment to suicide by any of the accused, nor was there conspiracy of any kind either. 4.5 That the PW-13 Dr. Rajendra Lodha, in his testimony, stated that the death of the victim occurred due to consumption of acid, but that it appears that the victim died by suicide, and that there is nothing to suggest that his death was under any kind of suspicious circumstances. 4.6 Furthermore, although PW-7 Shrawan Kumar admitted that he cleaned up the vomit of the deceased victim, he also stated at the time he was not aware of who had vomited, but was simply doing his duty. 5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order only after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and all the evidences placed on record before it. 7. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, and as is reflected from the record of the case, the learned trial court has found that after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the testimonies of the witnesses; PW-1 Puran Singh, PW-6, Baen Singh, PW-13 Dr. Rajendra Lodha and PW-7 Shrawan Kumar and the evidences placed on record before the learned Court below, do not make out the offence under Section 330 nor do they point towards any kind of conspiracy so as to make out a case under Section 120-B I.P.C. nor abetment to suicide by any of the accused. In the absence of the same, it is apparent that the death of the victim by suicide, was not due to instigation of the accused. Furthermore, the averment of the petitioner, that the deceased victim was taken to the mill premises, against his will, is not supported by any testimony nor substantiated by evidence. 8. Contrary to the averment, is the testimony of the head guard PW-1 Puran Singh who stated that the deceased was on the mill premises of his own free will, and was freely moving about the said premises. 9. 8. Contrary to the averment, is the testimony of the head guard PW-1 Puran Singh who stated that the deceased was on the mill premises of his own free will, and was freely moving about the said premises. 9. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.