Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1947 (RAJ)

State v. Gajendra Singh

2022-07-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 27.08.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur ('trial court') in Sessions Case No. 6/97 whereby the present respondents were acquitted of the charges against them for the offences under Sections 306, 420 & 120-B IPC. 2. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a first information submitted by PW-1 Narendra (complainant) on 15.07.1996, before the Police Station, Nai, alleging therein that on 14.07.1996 at about 09:15 p.m., his father, namely, Gordhan Lal (deceased) went to sleep in his room; he however did not wake up the next morning i.e. 15.07.1996. Hence, the complainant went to see his father; when the complainant peeped into his father's room, the complainant found that his father committed suicide by hanging himself. 2.1. Upon the aforesaid information, marg bearing No. 11/96 was prepared and a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; during the course of inquest, statement of witnesses were recorded, a letter (alleged to have been written by the deceased before suicide, and claimed to be falling within the definition of suicide note) was also recovered, alongwith other usual formalities. Thereafter, a case No. 151/96 was registered, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur City South, Udaipur, from where, upon committal the case was transferred to the learned trial court, for the necessary trial and adjudication. 2.3. Upon the charges being denied by the respondents, they were made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. After trial, the present respondents were acquitted vide the impugned judgment, as mentioned above, and against the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that the learned trial court clearly failed to appreciate the material fact, which has been proved by the prosecution by placing sufficient material on record, that respondent-Nirmal Kumar with the help of respondent-Gajendra Singh, under threat, duress & inducement, got a stamped (Rs. 20/-) document dated 11.06.1996, executed by deceased Gordhan Lal, in connection with some plot; as alleged, the said document got executed so as to enable the respondents to receive a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3.1. 20/-) document dated 11.06.1996, executed by deceased Gordhan Lal, in connection with some plot; as alleged, the said document got executed so as to enable the respondents to receive a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 3.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the present case is clearly falls within the definition of abetment to commit suicide, as the letter (suicide note), written by the deceased immediately before suicide and the stamped document in question clearly reveals that under threat, duress and inducement by the respondents, the Gordhan Lal committed suicide; the said aspect also did not receive due consideration of the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents. 3.2. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also not duly appreciated the evidence placed on record before it, and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, after duly appreciating the factum of many of the prosecution witnesses having turned hostile, failure of the prosecution to prove its case against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and the fact that most of the witnesses pleaded ignorance about being aware of the cause of the suicide in question. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court, before passing the impugned judgment, delved deep into the record and found that the prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the respondents, more particularly, the one pertaining to abetment to commit suicide. 4.2. Learned counsel thus, submits that the learned trial court has taken into consideration each and every aspect material for adjudication of the case before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents, and thus, the said well reasoned speaking judgment deserves no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is full of legal and factual discrepancies, as has rightly been observed by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment. 6. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is full of legal and factual discrepancies, as has rightly been observed by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment. 6. This Court also finds that PW-2 Shiv Bahadur Singh, PW-4 Smt. Kailashi (wife of the complainant) and PW-5 Sunderlal have been declared hostile by the prosecution witnesses; apart therefrom, most of the witnesses, as per the record, denied of having the knowledge of the cause of the suicide in question. 7. This Court further finds that the alleged stamped document was executed on 11.06.1996, but the suicide in question was committed in the midnight of 14/15.07.1996 i.e. after a month from the date of execution of the document; the prosecution has not been able to put forth any cogent reason, as to why for the entire period of one month, preceding the date of suicide, the deceased did not inform about the said document to anyone, including his son (the present complainant). 8. This Court also finds that the letter (alleged suicide note) was neither paginated, nor the same bears any signatures, which casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution case that the said letter was written by the deceased himself, immediately before committing the suicide. 9. The prosecution also did not examine the Notary concerned, before whom the stamped document in question was presented for being notarized, so as to ascertain whether the said document was executed out of own free consent and will of the deceased, or not. 10. All the aforementioned discrepancies, both legal and factual, are clearly detrimental to the case of the prosecution, as the same apparently casts a shadow of serious doubt upon the prosecution case. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is a well reasoned speaking judgment, and thus, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.