[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 189/2023
Ramratan S/o Shri Hemraj, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Village Badhpur, P.S. Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
----Complainant-Victim-Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
2. Kailash Chand Son Of Bhagchand, Aged 55 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
3. Rakesh @ Ramkesh Son of Kailash Chand, Aged 27 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
4. Mukesh Son Of Jagannath, Aged 30 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
5. Ramsingh Son Of Laxman, Aged 40 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
6. Ramveer Son Of Kailash Chand, Aged 21 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
--Accused-Respondents
For Complainant- : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
Appellant
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asstt. Govt. Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
03/10/2023
1. The Complainant-Appellant has preferred this appeal
aggrieved by judgment & order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.13/2021, whereby accused-respondents No.2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as "accused-respondents") have been acquitted from (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:42 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023] the charges for offences under Sections 142/143, 341, 323/149, 379 & 302 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and in alternate for offences under Sections 302/149 & 120-B of I.P.C.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Ramratan Gurjar (PW-2), son of deceased, wherein it was mentioned that on 28.08.2020 at 8:00 a.m., a fight took place between his father and the accused- respondents with regard to some amount which was outstanding towards the accused-respondents. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused-respondents threatened to kill his father. It was further mentioned that his father went to the temple and returned at about 09:00 p.m. on 28.08.2020 and in the morning, her mother found the body of his father hanging by rope from the tin shed and his hands were also tied at the back and his ear rings and golden Jantar were missing. On the said written report, police registered the First Information Report No.0209/2020 and after due investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents.
3. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused- respondents for offences under Sections 142/143, 341, 323/149, 379 & 302 I.P.C. and in alternate Sections 302/149 & 120-B I.P.C. Accused-respondents denied charges and sought trial, upon which, as many as 19 witnesses, 34 documents and Articles 1 to 4, were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Accused- respondents were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D-1 to D-4, were exhibited. After (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:42 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023] hearing the parties including counsel for the complainant, learned Court below has acquitted the accused-respondents from the alleged offences, aggrieved by which, complainant-appellant, has filed the present appeal.
4. It is contended by counsel appearing for the complainant- appellant that the fact that dispute took place between the parties on the date of the incident is established from the evidence adduced before the Court. It is also contended that hands of the deceased were tied at the back which points towards the commission of the offence of murder. It is further contended that Ramesh (PW-6) is the last seen witness, who has seen the accused-respondents coming out of the Bada belonging to the deceased at 02:00 a.m. in the intervening night of 28.08.2020 & 29.08.2020. It is contended that F.I.R. was lodged promptly and names of the accused-respondents were mentioned in the F.I.R., thus there was no time gap to manipulate and falsely implicate the accused-respondents. It is also contended that amount was due towards the accused-respondents and they had threatened the deceased.
5. We have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the evidence available on record.
6. It is pertinent to note that Ramesh (PW-6) is the only last seen witness, as Rambharat (PW-5) has turned hostile. As far as presence of Ramesh (PW-6) is concerned, his name does not find place in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1).
7. Rambilas (PW-1), brother of the deceased, has admitted that Ramesh had informed them about seeing the accused-respondents on the night of the occurrence. He has also admitted that he was (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:42 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023] present at the Police Station when Ramratan lodged the report. He has also stated that it was mentioned to the police that Ramesh had seen the incident as to why it was not mentioned in the F.I.R., he cannot tell.
8. It is important to note that written report was lodged by Ramratan, son of the deceased and statement of Ramesh (PW-6) was recorded by the police after four days of the incident. Had he witnessed the incident, his name would be placed in the F.I.R. and he would have given his statement immediately to the police. There is nothing on record to justify the delay in recording the statement of Ramesh (PW-6), thus it is evident that Ramesh is a planted witness.
9. Vinod Kumar (PW-18), Investigating Officer, has specifically stated that in the written report, there was no mention that anyone had seen the accused-respondents at night near the place of incident. He has also stated that F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of doubt. He has further stated that fingerprints and footprints of any of the accused-respondents were not found at the place of occurrence and there is no direct evidence linking the accused- respondents with the alleged offence. He has also stated that complainant and other witnesses have not mentioned in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Ramesh (PW-6) had seen the accused-respondents on the occurrence night. Thus, from the evidence of the Investigating Officer also, it is evident that there was no evidence to connect the accused- respondents with the alleged offence.
10. In addition, it may also be noted that there was no call location or any other evidence to establish that accused- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:42 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023] respondents were present in the Bada at the time of the alleged incident. As far as the occurrence which is stated to have taken place at 08:00 a.m. on 28.08.2020 is concerned, no report in this regard has been lodged with the police. In relation to this incident also, there is variance in the statement of witnesses.
11. The learned Trial Court has appropriately dealt with the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that no case has been made out against the accused-respondents. In the result, we do not find any force in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage.
12. Office is directed to send back the record to the concerned Court below along with certified copy of this judgment.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
AMIT/9
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)