Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 954 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Dalip Singh S/o Pannaram

2025-03-26

BHUWAN GOYAL, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The above criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition are being decided by this common judgment as they arise out of same judgment dated 24.02.2001 passed by the trial Court. 2. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 399/2001 has been filed by the appellant–State, whereas D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.375/2001 has been filed by the complainant-Randhir challenging the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.20/2000 (Old No. 67/2000) (State of Rajasthan vs. Dalip Singh) vide which accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of present appeal and revision petition are that complainant–Randhir (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/10) to SHO Police Station Guda Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu on 12.12.1999 to the effect that his younger brother Rohtas was working on Gadiya Dharmkanta at Jhunjhunu since past one and a half year. He did not come home for past 5-6 days. He used to go to his sister, who was married in Udawas. Yesterday evening, he left Dharmkanta and it was heard that Rohtas and Babulal were accompanying him. Today morning at about 7.00 a.m., Amar Singh came to him and informed that a man was lying dead near the tank of the village. The complainant went there and saw that his brother Rohtas was lying dead. There was a wound like cut on his head and he was eaten by dogs. It was mentioned in the report that some unknown persons had killed his brother and threw him there. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. No.330/1999 (Ex.P/18) was registered for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. before the competent Court and competent Court committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against accused-respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Accused-respondent denied charges and claimed for trial. Prosecution produced as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his defence, he got exhibited the police statements as Ex. D1 to D3. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court passed judgment and order dated 24.02.2001 acquitting the accused-respondent for the alleged offence. Prosecution produced as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in his defence, he got exhibited the police statements as Ex. D1 to D3. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court passed judgment and order dated 24.02.2001 acquitting the accused-respondent for the alleged offence. Hence, this criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition have been preferred by the appellant-State and the petitioner-complainant, respectively. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant have jointly submitted that prosecution produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of offence by the accused-respondent. This fact was duly corroborated from recovery of article used in the commission of offence i.e. battery light at the instance of the accused- respondent, but despite the trial Court disbelieved the testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses, misread the evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent without any cogent reason. Therefore, they have prayed that criminal appeal filed by the appellant-State and the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant may be allowed and the accused-respondent may be convicted and sentenced for alleged offence. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent while supporting the judgment and order passed by the trial Court has submitted that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-respondent. The trial Court after appreciating the entire material available on record rightly passed the judgment and order acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offence, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. We have considered the arguments and gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. 8. In the present case, P.W. 2 -Rajveer Singh is said to have witnessed the incident. Rajveer Singh (P.W. 2) was only 15 years young boy at the time of recording his statement. It is pertinent to mention here that while examining the testimony of a 15 years young boy, the Court is required to exercise special caution. P.W. 2 – Rajveer Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that incident took place 12 months ago. When he was returning from Bhadunda and reached at Badagaon Stand, accused-respondent Dalip met him at Bus Stand who came with a tractor. P.W. 2 – Rajveer Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that incident took place 12 months ago. When he was returning from Bhadunda and reached at Badagaon Stand, accused-respondent Dalip met him at Bus Stand who came with a tractor. When he said that he wanted to go to the village, Dalip said that after getting the tractor welded he would also go to the village. After getting the tractor welded, he and Dalip went to the liquor shop, where Dalip consumed liquor and at that time, Rohtash came there. Dalip and Rohtash both consumed liquor. Whereafter, all three came to Hansalsar on the tractor and went to the house of Dalip. He further stated that Dalip’s mother gave a battery light to Dalip. Later, Rajveer Singh and Dalip went to drop Rohtash. Rohtash abused Dalip saying that he had deceived him and asked as to why he did not drop him with tractor, upon which Dalip said that he would not drop him with tractor and would drop him on foot. When Rohtash was abusing him, Dalip hit on Rohtash’s temple (right side part of the head) with the battery light, as a result of which Rohtash fell down. Rajveer Singh asked Dalip to stand him up but he said let him die. He himself would get up later and go on his own. Then they returned home. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that he told lie to the police previously. Earlier, he had not told this fact to his family members and others. He informed the police that on the date of incident, Dalip’s mother gave a battery light to Dalip but this was not written in the Police statement (Ex.D/1). He also stated that both of them went to drop Rohtash. He informed this fact to the police earlier. However, contrary to aforesaid statement, it was mentioned by him in his Police statement (Ex.D/1) that he did not go with them and was sleeping in Dalip’s house. 9. It is also pertinent to note that this witness had admitted in his cross-examination before the concerned Court that he did not inform the police earlier that Rohtash was deceived and he was not dropped with the tractor. 9. It is also pertinent to note that this witness had admitted in his cross-examination before the concerned Court that he did not inform the police earlier that Rohtash was deceived and he was not dropped with the tractor. He also stated that he did not inform the police earlier that Rohtash abused Dalip, then Dalip hit on the temple (right side part of the head) of Rohtash with the battery light. He did not get written this fact in his statement (Ex.D/1). He also did not get it written in his statement (Ex.D/1) that Rohtash fell down as soon as he sustained injury by Dalip through battery light. He also did not get it written in his statement (Ex.D/1) that let him die, and he himself would get up and go away but he informed the police later. He also did not get written in Ex.D/1 that thereafter, they came home. Thus, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that there are material contradictions in the testimony deposed by him in his police statement (Ex.D/1) viz-a-viz his statement recorded as P.W. 2 in the Court and it was not established that PW 2 was present along with deceased and accused-respondent at the time of incident. 10. In the instant case, the allegation that injury on the temple (right side part of the head) of the deceased was caused by a battery light, was not proved from the statement of Dr. Rambihari Singh (PW 4). In his cross-examination, P.W. 4 – Dr. Rambihari Singh stated that a person who consumes too much alcohol, if walks in a zig-zag manner and fell down, then possibility of sustaining injury on his temple (right side part of the head) could not be ruled out but that injury would not be of such a high degree. He further stated that even a sharp stone also could cut the ear in any manner. Thus, according to him, injury could be caused by a stone. The prosecution was unable to establish that injury on the person of deceased was caused by accused-respondent with so-called battery light. 11. So far as recovery of article i.e. batter light at the instance of accused-respondent is concerned, a perusal of Ex.P/13 showed that said battery light was recovered in the presence of witnesses Sajjan Singh (P.W. 15) and Subhash Chandra (P.W. 6). 11. So far as recovery of article i.e. batter light at the instance of accused-respondent is concerned, a perusal of Ex.P/13 showed that said battery light was recovered in the presence of witnesses Sajjan Singh (P.W. 15) and Subhash Chandra (P.W. 6). It was mentioned in Ex.P/13 that no blood was found on the battery light. P.W. 6 – Subhash Chandra in his cross-examination admitted that no blood was found on the battery light. P.W. 15 – Sajjan Singh in his cross-examination stated that place of recovery was a residential house, in which other family members were also residing. Even, recovered article was not sent to F.S.L. for examination and thus, in absence of the F.S.L. Report, it could not be said that said recovered article was used in the commission of offence in this case or not. It is also pertinent to note that no independent recovery witness was produced by the prosecution in this case and both recovery witnesses were police officials, who were subordinate to the Seizing Officer. Neither rojnamcha regarding posting of these witnesses at the concerned police station nor log-book of vehicle was produced to show that they went to the place of recovery on the relevant date. Thus, from the evidence available on record, the prosecution was unable to prove recovery of article at the instance of the accused-respondent, which was allegedly used in the commission of offence. 12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment and order impugned passed by the trial Court. 13. Consequently, both criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition being bereft of any merit are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. The Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2001 passed by the trial Court is maintained. 14. The record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.