Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Devi vs State And Anr on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1491/2012
Vimla Devi wife of late Chandu Ram, by caste Nayak, resident of
village Kupali, Ramsinghpur Police Station, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Munshi Ram son of Shri Razi Ram, by caste Jat, resident of
village Kupali, Ramsinghpur Police Station, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. RDSS Khalia through VC.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP.
Mr. Shreyansh Ramdeo through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
JUDGMENT
Judgment pronounced on ::: 01/02/2022
Judgment reserved on ::: 28/01/2022
BY THE COURT :
1. The complainant Vimla Devi has approached this Court by
way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to
assail the order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
dismissing revision No.93/2011 preferred by the petitioner and
affirming the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar accepting the negative Final Report No.204/2010
submitted by the investigating officer of Police Station
(2 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
Ramsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar after investigation of the FIR
No.152/2010 registered for the offences under Section 302 of the
IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for decision of this misc.
petition are noted herein below.
3. The petitioner complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of
the learned ACJM, Anoopgarh on 02.08.2010 alleging inter alia
that the accused Munshi Ram came to their house with his tractor
on 21.07.2010 in the morning at about 08.00-08.30 AM. and
requested her husband Chanduram to accompany him to procure
seeds from Ramsinghpur. Her husband accompanied the accused
on his tractor and both proceeded towards Ramsinghpur. At about
12 O' Clock, her husband got a call from Minta Singh son of Amrik
Singh, resident of 57 GB requesting him for a belt and pulley to
operate the pump on tube-well. Her husband told Minta Singh that
he should proceed towards the field and he would be arriving
there with the accused Munshi Ram on his tractor and would hand
over the belt and the pulley. Minta Singh informed the
complainant that he was proceeding towards the field in the Chak
16 A.S. when he saw Chanduram sitting on the "Inter" tractor
which was being driven by Munshi Ram. At that time, these
persons were at a distance of about 2 Murabbas from the
Anoopgarh Branch Canal and both were in an inebriated state.
Chanduram signaled Minta Singh to proceed further indicating that
they would follow him from behind. Minta Singh came to their
house and asked the complainant and her son regarding the
whereabouts of Chanduram on which, they replied that he had not
(3 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
returned. Minta Singh took the pulley and the belt and went away.
At about 3 O' Clock, Vinod, son of complainant, called Munshi Ram
and asked him the whereabouts of Chanduram to which he replied
that he had dropped off Chanduram at a distance of one Murabba
from the Anoopgarh Canal and that he was unaware as to what
happened thereafter. On the next day, Munshiram called Vinod to
his house and asked him to assist in the search of Chanduram.
Vinod, who was a naive young boy, was taken to a few villages.
Then he was taken to the Ramsinghpur Mandi where he was made
to sign some documents by keeping him in dark. Munshi Ram
once again took Vinod and the complainant's brother to look out
for Chanduram. On 24.07.2010, the dead body of Chanduram was
found on the outlet of the canal at Point 8/9 K.N.D. The police was
called. Munshi Ram manipulated all these proceedings. They later
came to know that Munshi Ram had killed Chanduram by driving
the tractor over him and then the dead body was thrown into the
canal. Police was influenced by Shri Munshi Ram in order to
mislead the direction of investigation. She further alleged that a
month earlier, Munshi Ram illegally deprived them of irrigation
facility on which, her husband filed a case against Munshi Ram
who threatened to take revenge and as a culmination of this
enmity, Chanduram was murdered by Munshi Ram. The police
acted under the influence of the accused even while undertaking
proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Her son submitted an
application with true facts before the Dy. S.P. Anoopgarh who also
did not take action thereupon. Upon which, the complainant was
compelled to file the complaint in the court.
(4 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
4. This complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon, FIR No.152/2010 came to be registered
at the Police Station Ramsinghpur and investigation was
undertaken. The report of autopsy conducted upon the dead body
of Shri Chanduram was collected by the I.O. from the file of
proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and as per this report, the
left foot of the victim was found missing. The cause of death was
opined to be asphyxia by drowning which was antemortem in
nature. The I.O. conducted thorough investigation and came to
the conclusion that the allegations regarding the accused having
murdered Shri Chanduram were totally unsubstantiated. When
proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken, no such
suspicion was cast by any of the family members that the accused
Munshi Ram might have murdered Chanduram on account of prior
enmity. With this conclusion, a negative final report came to be
submitted in the court concerned.
5. Upon the final report being submitted, notice was issued to
the petitioner complainant who appeared and filed a protest
petition and got 8 witnesses examined in support of her case. The
learned Magistrate heard the arguments of the complainant's
counsel and proceeded to reject the protest petition/ complaint
and accepted the negative final report of the police by a detailed
order dated 19.08.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order
by filing a revision which too was dismissed by the learned
revisional court by order dated 16.04.2012 which are assailed in
this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(5 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
6. Dr. RDSS Kharlia, learned counsel representing the
petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned
orders are illegal as they were passed in sheer ignorance of
material facts and evidence available on record and hence, the
same cannot be sustained. The trial court as well as the revisional
court proceeded on a totally wrong assumption that the witness
Minta Singh was not examined in support of the protest petition
whereas the fact remains that the actual name of Minta Singh is
Sukhvir Singh and he was examined as CW-6 in support of the
complaint and gave positive evidence of last seen against the
accused. Shri Kharlia further submitted that the complainant's
witnesses have given clinching evidence of motive and last seen
against the accused and thus, at the stage of taking cognizance,
the learned courts below were totally unjustified in appreciating
and discarding the complainant's evidence as if, the case was
being finally decided. Shri Kharlia further submitted that when
postmortem of dead body of Chanduram was undertaken, his left
foot was found missing and thus, manifestly he was first brutally
beaten, killed and then thrown into the canal. Thus, as per Shri
Kharlia, it is a fit case wherein this Court should be persuaded to
exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the impugned orders and to direct trial of the respondent
accused for the offences alleged.
7. Per contra, Shri Shreyansh Ramdeo, learned counsel
representing the respondent accused, vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He
urged that no allegation was made by the complainant's witnesses
regarding the deceased Chanduram having been taken away by
(6 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
the accused Munshi Ram when proceedings under Section 174
Cr.P.C. were undertaken. The complainant came out with a case in
the complaint that the deceased was murdered and the dead body
was thrown into the canal. However, this allegation is contradicted
by the postmortem report wherein, the cause of death has been
opined to be asphyxia because of antemortem drowning. He thus
urged that there is no reliable material evidence on the record of
the case so as to make the respondent accused stand trial for the
offences alleged and sought dismissal of the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and, have gone through the material available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that Chandu Ram went missing on
21.07.2010 and his dead body was recovered from the canal on
24.07.2010. The proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were
undertaken and the son of the deceased namely Vinod
participated therein. At that point of time, no allegation
whatsoever was made regarding the deceased having been taken
away by the accused or that he might have been murdered owing
to prior enmity. The complainant has come out with a clear case
that there was a prior enmity between her husband and the
accused Munshi Ram who had given a threat to take revenge just
a month earlier.
10. In this background, the theory put-forth in the complaint
that the deceased accompanied the accused for buying seeds is
totally unacceptable and unnatural. A pertinent allegation was
(7 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
made in the complaint that the accused first murdered Shri
Chanduram and then threw the body into the canal. This
allegation is contradicted by the findings in the postmortem report
as per which, cause of death of Shri Chanduram was drowning.
Much stress was laid by Shri Kharlia on the aspect that left foot
was missing from the dead body. However, this is quite possible
because the body kept lying in the canal for almost three days and
aquatic animals in the canal might have masticated the limb. No
doubt, the observation made by the courts below in the impugned
orders regarding Minta Singh not having been examined in
support of the protest petition is incorrect because Minta Singh's
actual name is Sukhvir Singh and he was examined as CW-6 in
support of the protest petition. However, in view of the fact that
the version regarding Shri Minta Singh having seen the accused
and the deceased together was for the first time, brought to fore
after almost 10 days of the incident, makes this entire theory
dubitable.
11. In wake of the discussion made herein above, I am of the
opinion that the allegations set out by the petitioner complainant
in the complaint, the evidence led in support thereof and the
material collected by the police, do not provide sufficient material
consisting a prima facie case of murder so as to warrant trial of
the respondent accused for the offences punishable under Section
302 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
12. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri
(8 of 8) [CRLMP-1491/2012]
Ganganagar and the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, do not warrant any interference whatsoever by this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. As a consequence, the misc. petition fails and is hereby
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
72-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
