Rajasthan High Court
Ummed S/O Late Shri Kamlesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 21/2020
Ummed S/o Late Shri Kamlesh Kumawat B/c Kumawat, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o Mavanda Khurd, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
Distt. Sikar.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Ramkishan @ Jiya S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
B/c Jat, R/o Dhani Tillawali, Tan Mavanda Khurd, Thana
Sadar Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
JUDGMENT
26/08/2021
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
1. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant complainant Ummed for assailing the
Judgment dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in Sessions Case
No.21/2016 (CIS No.77/2016) whereby, the respondent
Ramkishan @ Jiya was acquitted from the charge for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
(2 of 4) [CRLAD-21/2020]
2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the appellant's counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and have
gone through the impugned Judgment as well as the record.
3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant
complainant lodged a written report at the Police Station Sadar,
Neem Ka Thana alleging inter alia that on 16.06.2016 at about
06.30 pm., his father Kamlesh was proceeding towards the liquor
shop at Mavanda. His father and Jiya regularly used to consume
liquor together. His father was a labourer and was habitual of
consuming liquor. Often, he would not return home for 2-3 days
and slept on the stone slabs outside the house. On the previous
night also, his father did not return. In the morning, he heard
from villagers that a dead body was lying in the field of Vasudev
Sharma. He went there and saw that the body was of his father.
He had been throttled by the waist he was wearing and there were
injuries on his eyes, nose, ears, and mouth. He suspected that
Jiya son of Hariram had throttled and killed his father. The
investigating officer concluded investigation and filed a charge-
sheet against the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and got
exhibited 17 documents. The accused denied the prosecution
suggestions in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but did not
lead any evidence in defence. After appreciating the evidence
available on record, the trial court found that there was no eye-
witness of the incident. The circumstances portrayed by the
prosecution to link the accused with the offence were not
clinching. The first informant (appellant himself), upon being
examined as PW-1, admitted that whatever statement he was
(3 of 4) [CRLAD-21/2020]
giving was based on hearsay. He did not see anything with his
own eyes. The other prosecution witness PW-8 Banarasi Devi
(mother of the deceased) was also portrayed as a witness of last
seen. However, she too admitted in her cross-examination that
she saw the deceased Kamlesh in an intoxicated condition sitting
on the stone slab outside the shop of Shiv Bhagwan. Her
testimony is also very vague and unconvincing. Ramesh Kumar
(PW-11), the liquor salesman, was also portrayed to be a witness
of last seen. He stated that Ramkishan and Kamlesh had come to
his shop and purchased liquor. On the next morning, he heard that
Kamlesh had expired.
4. From the evidence of these three witnesses, no convincing
conclusion can be drawn that they lastly saw the deceased in
company of the accused soon before his death. The material
prosecution witnesses viz. Ummed (PW-1) and Smt. Banarasi Devi
(PW-8) admitted that the accused Ramkishan and the deceased
used to consume liquor together as a routine. There is no
evidence of any prosecution witness who saw the accused and the
deceased consuming liquor together anywhere near the place
where the dead body of Kamlesh was found. There is no dispute
that the accused had no motive whatsoever to murder the
deceased. Other than the so-called evidence of last seen, there is
nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the conclusions drawn by the trial
court in the impugned Judgment, while acquitting the respondent
accused from the charge, were based on an apropos appreciation
of evidence available on record and that the impugned Judgment
does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.
(4 of 4) [CRLAD-21/2020]
Hence, we find no reason to admit this victim's appeal under
Section 372 Cr.P.C. which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Record be returned to the trial court.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Tikam Daiya/RAHUL ARYA /12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
