Khiva Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:24607)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5568 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24607]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1019/2018

1.       Khiva Ram S/o Bhagu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c
         Prajapat, R/o Vill. Kothibadda, Teh. Bidasar
2.       Pawan Kumar S/o Khiva Ram, Aged About 20 Years, B/c
         Prajapat, R/o Vill. Kothibadda, Teh. Bidasar
                                                                        ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       State, Through Pp
2.       Ram Chandra S/o Sh. Gyana Ram, R/o Hemasar Athuna,
         Teh. Bidasar Dist. Churu.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Om Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                               :::               26/07/2023
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                             :::               03/08/2023


BY THE COURT:-

1. The appellants have made challenge to the order dated

01.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu in F.R. No.80/2016

arising out of FIR No.53/2016 Police Station Bidasar whereby the

learned Judge took cognizance against the appellants under

Section 302 r.w. Sections 34 & 120B of the IPC and Section 3 (2)

(va)of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, in nutshell the facts of the case

are that on 30.05.2016 at about 2:57 p.m. complainant-

[2023:RJ-JD:24607] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1019/2018]

respondent Ram Chandra submitted a written report at the Police

Station Bidasar to the effect that on 29.05.2016 at about 10:50

p.m. Khivaram Prajapat, owner of Hotel Jai Maa Bhawani, his son

Pawan Kumar, Gopal Siyag, Prithvi Raj and Shrawan along with 5-

7 others persons has murdered his son at the hotel of Khivaram;

blood stains and hair of Bansi Lal handed over to SHO. It was

further stated in the report that at the time of incident his son

Bansi Lal called his cousin brother Dheeraram and prayed to

rescue him.

3. On the basis of the said report FIR No.53/2016 was

registered at the Police Station Bidasar wherein after thorough

investigation, the police submitted a negative final report in the

Court concerned stating therein that no one has committed

murder of Bansi Lal, the deceased was died due to heavily drunk,

when he was returning towards home after taking dinner from Jai

Bhawani Hotel, he fell down from the stairs and succumbed to

injuries. Upon filing protest petition by the respondent No.2, the

learned trial Judge initiated an inquiry and examined the

respondent No.2 and his witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 of

the Cr.P.C. and whereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2018, took

cognizance of the offences and issued process against the present

appellants.

4. A perusal of the order impugned revealing that prima facie

there is material available on record to take cognizance of the

offence against the appellants. No meticulous appreciation of

evidence is required, the statement of the complainant getting

corroboration from other independence evidence, the conclusion of

[2023:RJ-JD:24607] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1019/2018]

the investigating officer that the deceased Bansi Lal had heavily

consumed liquor and fell down as a consequence of which

sustained injuries on his head and then died does not seem

convincing even to this court as deceased received four injuries

on head which is a vital part of the body. The Medical Officer,

Bidasar clearly opined that the injury No.4 could not be sustained

upon felling on the earth surface. Suffice it would be to say that

the allegations levelled against the accused are strongly getting

fortification from other independent evidence direct or

circumstantial which builds a strong prima facie case against the

appellants.

5. Learned trial Judge has aptly appreciated the legal and

factual aspects of the matter and due opportunity was afforded to

the parties; their submissions were noted and discussed

thoroughly and then he passed a reasoned and speaking order

regarding cognizance of offence. Prima facie, an opinion can be

formed that there are reasonable grounds for presuming that the

accused-appellants have committed the offences. It is nigh well

settled that at the time of hearing on the point of cognizance, the

Court is not required to go deep into the merits of the case.

Neither meticulous examination of the evidence is required to be

done nor threadbare discussion of the matter is warranted. At the

stage of simply proceeding further, whether or not a prima facie

case is made out has to be seen and at the same time, the

defence of the accused is not required to be considered.

6. Considering the material available on record, this court is of

the firm opinion that there are reasonable grounds to proceed

further in the matter.

[2023:RJ-JD:24607] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1019/2018]

7. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Criminal Revision

Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

8. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 244-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)