Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17384 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 824/2021

Mukesh S/o Niranjan Bhat, Aged About 31 Years, Lakhari Ghat, Ochhadi Darwaja, P.s. Chittorgarh Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr Sudheer Tak, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Order

22 November, 2021

The instant revision petition has been filed by the

petitioner against the judgment dated 17.2.2020, whereby the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh while

dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No.

907/2007.

As per prosecution story, on 4.2.2017 at 4:15 PM,

during Nakabandi by SHO, Vikram Singh Rathore with other police

personnel, one motorcycle with two pillion riders coming in fast

speed from Chittorgary City was stopped by police persons. All the

three persons, riding motorcycle, tried to flee away but they were

nabbed on the spot. On asking, they disclosed their names. Rider

of the motorcycle told his name as Wazir Singh, whereas, other

two pillion riders disclosed their names as Mukesh (present

petitioner) and Anil. Motorcycle was bearing number plate showing

Registration Number as RJ09 5M 8690. Wazir Singh had no

(2 of 4) [CRLR-824/2021]

documents of the motorcycle. On suspicion, an inquiry was made

on telephone from the Transport Department regarding

registration number of the motorcycle. As per information received

from Transport Department, one Mohammad Arif son of Abdul

Gaffar was the registered owner of the motorcycle. Then again an

inquiry was made from the aforesaid persons, who disclosed that

with an intent to commit offence, they have forged the number

plate of the motorcycle. The motorcycle was seized and an FIR No.

96/2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 411, 467,

468 and 471 IPC.

After thorough investigation, challan was filed against

all three persons. Wazir Singh was charged for the offence under

Sections 406, 468 and 471 IPC, whereas Mukesh and Anil were

charged for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During trial, the prosecution produced total seven

witnesses in support of its case. When contradicted with the

prosecution evidence, accused denied the correctness of the

evidence. In defence no witness has been produced. After trial and

hearing, learned trial court convicted the accused petitioner

Mukesh for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Accused

Wazir Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 406 IPC.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Aggrieved

with the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner

has filed the instant revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned Public Prosecutor.

                                           (3 of 4)                        [CRLR-824/2021]



           As   per    charge       framed        against         Wazir     Singh,   the

motorcycle was entrusted to him by one Vijay Singh. Vijay Singh

did not appear before the trial court. However, learned trial court

concluded that since this motorcycle did not belong to Mohd. Arif,

hence, it may be presumed that Wazir Singh received this

motorcycle knowingly that it was stolen property. It is surprising

that when there was specific charge that motorcycle was

entrusted to Wazir Singh by Vijay Singh, then in the absence of

statement of Vijay Singh, how can it be presumed that it was a

stolen property.

Investigating Officer Hanuwant Singh (PW-7) in cross-

examination admitted the suggestion of the defence that this

motorcycle was received by Wazir Singh from Vijay Singh. He also

admitted that Vijay Singh did not lodge any report regarding theft

of motorcycle. He does not know who wrote the fake number on

the number plate of motorcycle. During investigation, it came in

the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that original

Registration Number of the motorcycle was RJ24 4M 6520, which

was in the name of Bhajan Singh who has already died

In view of above admission of the Investigating Officer,

learned trial court has committed gross error in concluding that

the motorcycle was stolen property.

As mentioned earlier, learned trial court itself neither

convicted Wazir Singh under Section 411 IPC nor under Section

406 IPC for misappropriation of the motorcycle.

Learned trial court acquitted the accused Wazir Singh

from the offence under Section 406 IPC on the ground that Vijay

Singh is the son of registered owner Bhajan Singh, who did not

appear before the trial court. Hence, adverse inference should be

drawn against Vijay Singh and not against the accused persons.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-824/2021]

On account of non-appearance of Vijay Singh before the trial

court, this inference can be drawn that he handed over the

motorcycle to Wazir Singh.

In the above background, both the courts below

committed grave error in convicting the petitioner Mukesh for the

offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Petitioner was pillion

rider on the motorcycle and without any positive evidence against

him that he committed forgery of the number plate or either

assisted Wazir Singh in forging the number plate of the

motorcycle, how can it be concluded that the petitioner committed

the offence of forgery. There is no evidence on record to suggest

that the petitioner had the knowledge that the motorcycle bears

false number plate. There is no evidence on record that who

forged the number plate of the motorcycle.

Accordingly, the revision petition deserves acceptance

and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.2.2020

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh

in Criminal Appeal No. 178/2014 and the order dated 13.12.2011

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Chittorgarh are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the

charge under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.

The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in

any other case.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

13-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)