Kishan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14312 Raj

                                        (1 of 5)                   [CRLAD-110/2022]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                 D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 110/2022

Kishan Lal S/o Kalu Ji Bheel, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Galwa
Bhilwad Ps Kunwariya Dist. Rajsamand Raj.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Prabhulal Teli S/o Bhaghu Teli, R/o Devariya Ps Kunwariya
         Dist. Rajsamand
3.       Bhairulal Gadari S/o Udai Lal @ Uda Gadari, R/o Laduwas
         Ps Kareda Dist. Bhilwara
4.       Bahadar Rebari S/o Gulab Rebari, R/o Lalari Ps Bagore
         Dist. Bhilwara
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Vishan Das
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                JUDGMENT

06/12/2022

The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant-Kishan

Lal for assailing the judgment dated 04.04.2022 passed by

learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions Case

No.27/2019 whereby the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 charged

under Section 302, 201, 364, 120B IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of

SC/ST Act were acquitted.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal

are noted hereinbelow:-

A written complaint (Ex.P/4) dated 23-06-2017 was

presented by one Shri Devi Lal (P.W.3) alleging inter alia that one

(2 of 5) [CRLAD-110/2022]

Roop Lal had been looking after his farms, working as an

agriculturist for 7 years. Roop Lal used to come to his house for

food and later to sleep at night. On 23.06.2017, complainant Shri

Devi Lal went to the farm around 6:30 AM but did not find Roop

Lal there, though his bedding and shoes were lying there. He

started inquiring about Roop Lal's whereabouts along with Udai Lal

and in the interregnum, they were informed by one Magnaram Teli

that a dead body was lying at Bhilwara-Lalukhedi Chouraha. Thus,

proceeded to the said location and identified the dead body to be

of Roop Lal having head injuries which seemed to have been

inflicted using sharp weapons along with an injury around the

eyes. Based on this information, an F.I.R. bearing No.99/2017

came to be registered at the Police Station, Kunwaria for offences

under Section 302, 201, 364, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/

ST Atrocities Act against unknown assailants.

At the conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed

against the respondents herein for offences under Section 302,

201, 364, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Atrocities Act.

Pursuant thereto, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Rajsamand

framed charges against the respondents herein for the above

mentioned offences. The prosecution examined 37 witnesses and

exhibited 82 documents to prove its case. The accused-

respondents on being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated

to be innocent and claimed trial. After hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and defence counsel and appreciating the evidence

available on record, the learned trial court, proceeded to acquit

the respondents from the charges for the offences punishable

under Section 302, 201, 364, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/

ST Atrocities Act vide judgment dated 04.04.2022 which is

(3 of 5) [CRLAD-110/2022]

assailed by appellant -Kishan Lal Defacto the complainant in this

appeal against acquittal.

Shri Vishan Das, learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently and fervently submitted that the FSL reports clearly

indicate that weapons recovered at the instance of the accused

had human blood stains. Learned counsel further submitted that

the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the location of

mobile phones and the call detail record of the accused

established that they had hatched a conspiracy to murder Roop

Lal. Learned counsel also submitted that the first informant Shri

Devi Lal had turned hostile since his daughter Rajudi alias Tina

was also an accused in the F.I.R. Learned counsel urged that the

accused on being questioned under Section 313, CrPC, failed to

provide any explanation for the blood stains found on weapons

and clothes, recovered by the police. Learned counsel vehemently

urged that the learned trial court only considering that the eye-

witnesses turned hostile and there was no last seen witness of the

incident, acquitted the accused-respondents while ignoring the

gravely incriminating circumstances existing against them on

record.

On the strength of these submissions, he contended that the

impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and contrary to the

evidence available on record and hence, the same deserves to be

reversed.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

Shri Vishan Das, learned counsel for the appellant and have

carefully perused the impugned judgment.

Having appreciated the entirety of facts and evidence

available on record and considering the following circumstances:-

(4 of 5) [CRLAD-110/2022]

(i) No independent eye-witness or last seen witness of the incident

were produced before the trial court.

(ii) The complainant Devi Lal (P.W.3) stated that no recovery or

seizure was made in his presence thereby rendering the recoveries

suspicious; he also denied the factum of giving any written report

to the police.

(iii) The complainant in cross examination admitted being an

illiterate person who only knows how to sign. Further he admitted

having signed all the papers at once at R.K. Hospital, without

having knowledge as to their contents.

(iv) The nephew of the deceased, Kishan Lal (P.W.4) also admitted

having signed blank papers at the mortuary following the

instructions of police.

(v) FSL report (Ex.P/82) remained inconclusive as it failed to

identify the blood group found on the recovered weapons and

clothes and hence the recoveries could not be linked to the

deceased.

(vi) No DNA report of the deceased was conducted in order to

prove that the articles recovered could be linked to him.

Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the chain

of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the charges

against the respondents.

The prosecution charge that the respondents murdered Roop

Lal is based purely on circumstantial evidence which is to be

established by the prosecution through an unbreached chain of

circumstances, who has failed to discharge this burden. As noticed

above, there was no eye-witness of the incident and the entire

prosecution case hinges on phone location and call records which

(5 of 5) [CRLAD-110/2022]

in no manner establish any relation between the accused and the

incident.

In wake of discussion made herein above, we are of the firm

opinion that the allegations of the eyewitnesses that accused-

respondents used sharp weapons to cause death of Roop Lal has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court was

perfectly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents of

charges. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned

judgment dated 04.04.2022 acquitting the accused are absolutely

sound, not suffering from any perversity or illegality.

In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of merit.

Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                            (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    32-RaviKh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)