Satya Narain vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7074 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 506/2001

Satya Narain

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogita Mohnani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, P.P.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

12/05/2022

1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment,

dated 09.07.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track), Bhilwara acquitting the respondents no. 2 to 7, in Sessions

Case No. 2/2001 with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and after perusal set aside the order of acquittal, remand the case to the lower court or pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant/petitioner filed an F.I.R., bearing No. 198/1996, at

the Police Station, Hamirgarh, Bhilwara stating therein that his

elder brother Gopal was engaged as a labourer/Class IV at

Sangam Spinner, Hamirga and that allegations of theft were

levelled against his brother and the security officer of the Mill. And

that the officers, namely; Narendra Kumar, Chandmal, S.N.

(2 of 6) [CRLR-506/2001]

Mathur and Ashok Kumar i.e. respondents no. 2,3,4 and 6

respectively, allegedly locked his brother in a room in the factory,

threatened and beat him up, and tortured him. And that,

ultimately his brother committed suicide. And that, the police

authorities registered a case for the offences under Sections 306,

330, 342 and 120-B I.P.C. and that subsequently a charge sheet

was filed for the above mentioned offences, and also for the

offence under Section 201 I.P.C., pursuant to which the learned

trial court framed charges against the accused persons; however,

after trial, acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled

against them.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned trial court has seriously erred in acquitting the accused,

respondents no. 2 to 7 for the offences under aforementioned

provisions of law, especially since the ingredients of the said

offences were clearly made out by the prosecution through the

evidences placed on record before the learned trial court.

2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the learned Court below

has overlooked the key testimony of P.W. 10 Durga Devi, the wife

of the deceased victim, wherein she stated that the security

officer, respondent no. 4, had come to her residence and asked

her to send her husband (deceased) to the Mill. And that, the

respondent no. 5, Banwarilal also visited their residence and

inquired about her husband's whereabouts, and that even

respondents no. 2 and 6 also visited their house. And that, on

20.10. 1996, she and her husband had gone to a temple, when

the respondents no. 5, Banwarilal and Yashpal took them to

Sangam Spinners Mill. And that thereafter, they were taken to the

(3 of 6) [CRLR-506/2001]

house of respondent no. 4 and taken into a room, where they

were questioned and then threatened when they did not comply.

And that, she was left off but the deceased was taken away by

Yashpal and Banwarilal. And that he was subsequently found dead

in the factory, having passed away by suicide, after consuming

acid.

2.3 Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial court has

also erred in finding that the involvement and acts committed by

the respondent no. 4 does not constitute 'abetment of suicide'

since it is evident from the face of the record that he threatened

the deceased victim and his wife, and held them in his house.

2.4 Learned counsel further submits that a prima facie case is

made out, under the aforementioned offences, against the

accused and that the following circumstances were laid before the

learned Court below; that the deceased was confined in the room

of the Mill under guard, the deceased was administered/consumed

acid which was found in the Mill; that the deceased vomited and

the traces of the same were collected; that the body of the

deceased was found in the room in the Mill and; that there was no

other motive or reason for the deceased to have died by suicide,

except due to the fear instilled and threats made to him by the

accused at whose instance he was brought to the mill.

2.5 Learned counsel also submits that the post mortem report

also reveals that the body of the deceased reveals signs of beating

and abrasions; when the body of the deceased was found, his

clothes were blood stained; the respondent no.4, the security

officer of the Mill directed one Sarwan Kumar to clean the vomit

from the room in which the deceased was detailed illegally and the

(4 of 6) [CRLR-506/2001]

bottle of the acid was also found in the room of respondent no. 4

at the Mill and produced before the police, at Ex. P4, by Sarwan

Kumar, P.W. 7, and that P.W. 14 and 15 corroborate the testimony

of Durga Devi.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order

after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances

of the case, and after appreciating the evidences placed on the

record.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

trial court has framed issues and dealt with each issue, in arriving

at the conclusion of acquittal of the accused, in the following

manner,

4.1 That a perusal of the evidences placed on record before it

revealed that P.W. 1 Puran Singh, who was employed as the head

guard in the mill, stated that on the date of the alleged incident he

was on duty at the mill from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. the next day, and

that the respondent no. 4 in fact, did not come to the mill on the

day in question and that the deceased-victim was in fact on the

premises of the mill, and that he did not notice anything untoward

with respect to the deceased-victim.

4.2 That P.W. 6, Baen Singh, turned hostile, and recanted from

his earlier testimony and that there was nothing on record to

suggest that the deceased victim was illegally detained in the mill

against his will.

4.3 That from a perusal of the evidences, there was nothing that

pointed towards the allegations made that the accused tortured

the deceased victim.

(5 of 6) [CRLR-506/2001]

4.4 That the ingredients for the offence under Section 330 I.P.C.

are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case,

neither are they supported by any evidence. Similarly, neither is

there anything on the record to suggest that there was abetment

to suicide by any of the accused, nor was there conspiracy of any

kind either.

4.5 That the P.W. 13 Dr. Rajendra Lodha, in his testimony, stated

that the death of the victim occurred due to consumption of acid,

but that it appears that the victim died by suicide, and that there

is nothing to suggest that his death was under any kind of

suspicious circumstances.

4.6 Furthermore, although P.W. 7 Shrawan Kumar admitted that

he cleaned up the vomit of the deceased victim, he also stated at

the time he was not aware of who had vomited, but was simply

doing his duty.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the learned trial court has rightly

passed the impugned order only after taking into due

consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and

all the evidences placed on record before it.

7. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, and as

is reflected from the record of the case, the learned trial court has

found that after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of

the present case, the testimonies of the witnesses; P.W. 1 Puran

Singh, P.W. 6, Baen Singh, P.W. 13 Dr. Rajendra Lodha and P.W. 7

Shrawan Kumar and the evidences placed on record before the

learned Court below, do not make out the offence under Section

(6 of 6) [CRLR-506/2001]

330 nor do they point towards any kind of conspiracy so as to

make out a case under Section 120-B I.P.C nor abetment to

suicide by any of the accused. In the absence of the same, it is

apparent that the death of the victim by suicide, was not due to

instigation of the accused. Furthermore, the averment of the

petitioner, that the deceased victim was taken to the mill

premises, against his will, is not supported by any testimony nor

substantiated by evidence.

8. Contrary to the averment, is the testimony of the head guard

P.W. 1 Puran Singh who stated that the deceased was on the mill

premises of his own free will, and was freely moving about the

said premises.

9. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds

that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial

does not suffer from any infirmity, so as to warrant any

interference by this Court.

10. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed. All

pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned

court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

56-Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)