Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Gajendra Singh on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 80/1998
State
----Appellant
Versus
Gajendra Singh & Anr.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi PP
Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chakrawati Singh Rathore
Mr. Vivek Siddh for
Mr. Deelip Kawadia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
05/07/2022
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
State against the judgment dated 27.08.1997 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
Udaipur ('trial court') in Sessions Case No.6/97 whereby the
present respondents were acquitted of the charges against them
for the offences under Sections 306, 420 & 120-B IPC.
2. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a first information
submitted by PW-1 Narendra (complainant) on 15.07.1996, before
the Police Station, Nai, alleging therein that on 14.07.1996 at
about 09:15 p.m., his father, namely, Gordhan Lal (deceased)
went to sleep in his room; he however did not wake up the next
morning i.e. 15.07.1996. Hence, the complainant went to see his
father; when the complainant peeped into his father's room, the
complainant found that his father committed suicide by hanging
himself.
(Downloaded on 06/07/2022 at 08:45:23 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLA-80/1998]
2.1 Upon the aforesaid information, marg bearing No.11/96 was
prepared and a case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.;
during the course of inquest, statement of witnesses were
recorded, a letter (alleged to have been written by the deceased
before suicide, and claimed to be falling within the definition of
suicide note) was also recovered, alongwith other usual
formalities. Thereafter, a case No.151/96 was registered, and after
investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur
City South, Udaipur, from where, upon committal the case was
transferred to the learned trial court, for the necessary trial and
adjudication.
2.3 Upon the charges being denied by the respondents, they
were made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly
commenced. After trial, the present respondents were acquitted
vide the impugned judgment, as mentioned above, and against
the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State submits that the learned trial court clearly failed to
appreciate the material fact, which has been proved by the
prosecution by placing sufficient material on record, that
respondent-Nirmal Kumar with the help of respondent-Gajendra
Singh, under threat, duress & inducement, got a stamped
(Rs.20/-) document dated 11.06.1996, executed by deceased
Gordhan Lal, in connection with some plot; as alleged, the said
document got executed so as to enable the respondents to receive
a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the present
case is clearly falls within the definition of abetment to commit
(Downloaded on 06/07/2022 at 08:45:23 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLA-80/1998]
suicide, as the letter (suicide note), written by the deceased
immediately before suicide and the stamped document in question
clearly reveals that under threat, duress and inducement by the
respondents, the Gordhan Lal committed suicide; the said aspect
also did not receive due consideration of the learned trial court,
while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the
respondents.
3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the learned trial
court has not taken into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, as also not duly appreciated the
evidence placed on record before it, and therefore, the impugned
judgment of acquittal is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment of acquittal, after duly appreciating the
factum of many of the prosecution witnesses having turned
hostile, failure of the prosecution to prove its case against the
respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and the fact that most
of the witnesses pleaded ignorance about being aware of the
cause of the suicide in question.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court,
before passing the impugned judgment, delved deep into the
record and found that the prosecution has clearly failed to prove
its case against the respondents, more particularly, the one
pertaining to abetment to commit suicide.
4.3 Learned counsel thus, submits that the learned trial court
has taken into consideration each and every aspect material for
adjudication of the case before passing the impugned judgmentof
acquittal in favour of the respondents, and thus, the said well
(Downloaded on 06/07/2022 at 08:45:23 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLA-80/1998]
reasoned speaking judgment deserves no interference by this
Court.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case, this Court finds that the
prosecution case is full of legal and factual discrepancies, as has
rightly been observed by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment.
6. This Court also finds that PW-2 Shiv Bahadur Singh, PW-4
Smt. Kailashi (wife of the complainant) and PW-5 Sunderlal have
been declared hostile by the prosecution witnesses; apart
therefrom, most of the witnesses, as per the record, denied of
having the knowledge of the cause of the suicide in question.
7. This Court further finds that the alleged stamped document
was executed on 11.06.1996, but the suicide in question was
committed in the midnight of 14/15.07.1996 i.e. after a month
from the date of execution of the document; the prosecution has
not been able to put forth any cogent reason, as to why for the
entire period of one month, preceding the date of suicide, the
deceased did not inform about the said document to any one,
including his son (the present complainant).
8. This Court also finds that the letter (alleged suicide note)
was neither paginated, nor the same bears any signatures, which
casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution case that the said
letter was written by the deceased himself, immediately before
committing the suicide.
9. The prosecution also did not examine the Notary concerned,
before whom the stamped document in question was presented
for being notarized, so as to ascertain whether the said document
(Downloaded on 06/07/2022 at 08:45:23 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLA-80/1998]
was executed out of own free consent and will of the deceased, or
not.
10. All the aforementioned discrepancies, both legal and factual,
are clearly detrimental to the case of the prosecution, as the same
apparently casts a shadow of serious doubt upon the prosecution
case.
11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial court is a well reasoned speaking judgment, and
thus, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court
below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
48-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
