Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deepak Sansi vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
(1 of 3) [CRLAS-706/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 706/2019
Deepak Sansi S/o Kalu Sansi, Aged About 24 Years, Mandal,
Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara (Raj).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ravi S/o Rakesh, Sansi Basti Station Road Mandal District
Bhilwara
3. Kali Spouse/o Late Rakesh, Sansi Basti Station Road
Mandal District Bhilwara
4. Dalla S/o Surajmal, Raigar Mohalla, Gulabpura Road
Baneda, District Bhilwara
5. Praveen S/o Prahlad, Radhika Bada, Jahajpura, District
Bhilwara
6. Gayarsi @ Suman Spouse/o Praveen, Radhika Bada,
Jahajpura, District Bhilwara, All By Caste Sansi
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
01/07/2021
The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant complainant Deepak Sansi for assailing
acquittal of the respondents No.2 to 6 as recorded by the learned
trial court vide judgment dated 1.5.2019 passed in Sessions Case
No.70/2016 whereby, the respondents were exonerated from the
charge under Section 316 I.P.C. By the very same judgment, the
respondents herein were convicted for the following offences:
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-706/2019]
Accused Convicted for Sentence
respondents offence under
Section
1. Ravi 147 IPC 2 Years' S.I. with
2. Smt. Kali fine of Rs.500/- in
3. Dalla default 10 days
4. Praveen SI
and
5.Gayarsi @Suman
452 r.w. 149 IPC 3 Years' S.I. with
fine of Rs.1000/-
in default 20 days'
SI
341 r.w. 149 IPC One month's SI
323 r.w. 149 IPC One year's SI
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
the appellant's counsel and counsel representing the respondents
and have gone through the impugned judgment and the entire
record.
The accusation as against the accused regarding the offence
under Section 316 I.P.C. was based on an allegation that the
complainant's wife Smt.Sunita who was carrying a fetus of 8
months in her womb, was kicked and severely assaulted on her
abdominal area, which resulted into the death of the fetus in her
womb itself and as a consequence, the lady suffered septicemic
shock and she too expired. A perusal of the impugned judgment
and the record indicates that the alleged incident took place on
30.7.2016. The F.I.R. came to be lodged on 3.8.2016 after the
lady had given birth to a dead child. The medical jurist P.W.2
Dr.Gyan Prakash Maheshwari and P.W.9 Dr.Naveen Bhadana
expressly admitted in their testimony that no marks of
violence/injury were noticed on the fetus or the abdominal area of
the lady Smt.Sunita. The fetus was not even subjected to autopsy.
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-706/2019]
The lady expired by septicemic shock. However, no charge for
offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused
respondents. There is available on record report (Ex.D1) lodged by
the lady Smt.Sunita to the S.H.O. P.S. Mandal on the very day of
the incident in which, there is no allegation whatsoever that she
was assaulted or caused injury on her abdominal area by any of
the accused persons.
In this background, I am of the firm opinion that acquittal of
the respondents as recorded by the trial court from the offence
under Section 316 I.P.C. does not suffer from any error either
factual or legal and hence, there do not exist valid or sufficient
grounds so as to admit this appeal filed by the complainant under
Section 372 Cr.P.C.
Thus, the appeal fails and is rejected as being devoid of
merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/ 19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
