Sohanram @ Sonaram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5596 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/2020

Sohanram @ Sonaram S/o Pannaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Nadsar Police Station, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ramniwas S/o Khiyaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nausar, Bhopalgarh, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Bajrang Singh.
                               Mr. Narayan Dan.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
                               Mr. Ramavatar Singh (for
                               complainant)
                               Mr. Sumer Singh Gour (for
                               complainant)


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                        Judgment

04/08/2023

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in

custody in connection with F.I.R. No.15/2019, registered at Police

Station Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural, for the offences under

Sections 302, 397 & 341 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(Va) of

the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order

dated 11.06.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases),

Jodhpur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

(2 of 5) [CRLAS-512/2020]

The complainant- son of the deceased Smt. Sipudi submitted

a written report on 08.02.2019 at PS Gopalgarh, stating that his

mother who had gone to graze the goats in the morning, has not

returned till 2:30 pm. The complainant further submitted that

while making the search, dead body of Smt. Sipudi was found

about two kilometers away from the residence in a field. The

injuries on the dead body inflicted by lathi were visible and gold

items worn by the deceased were stolen. The complainant lodged

FIR against unknown persons/assailants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that there are no eye witness or last seen

witness in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the

prosecution story hinges around circumstantial evidence only,

which is otherwise a very weak piece of evidence.

Drawing attention of the Court towards FSL report, learned

counsel submitted that the FSL report only indicates that human

blood was found on the clothes, lathi and broken wooden pieces,

etc., but the same was 'inconclusive' for blood grouping.

Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution story solely

rests upon recovery of gold articles (sone ki kanthi and sone ki

totiya) at the instance of present appellant, allegedly worn by the

deceased at the time of alleged incident. Learned counsel

submitted that in this view of the matter, the circumstances if

taken cumulatively, then the chain of incriminating circumstances

is not complete. It was thus submitted that the prima facie

inference that can be drawn from the sole circumstance against

(3 of 5) [CRLAS-512/2020]

that the appellant is that he is either the receiver of the stolen

gold articles or the one who committed theft.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is

languishing in jail since 25.07.2019. Learned counsel submitted

that till date, out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of

only one witness have been recorded. It was thus, submitted that

the speed at which trial is being conducted against the present

appellant, the same is not likely to be completed in near future.

Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of

Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 98.

On the strength of the submissions advanced, learned

counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant may be

enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and

jointly submitted that gold articles (sone ki kanthi and sone ki

totiya), identified by the complainant, allegedly stolen by the

appellant, have been recovered at his instance, in pursuance of

the disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act. It was further submitted that a confession made by an

accused person in custody is to be treated true by subsequent

discovery. Learned counsel jointly submitted that recovery of the

articles at the behest of the present appellant imputes motive for

commission of alleged crime.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant implored the Court not to enlarge the appellant on

(4 of 5) [CRLAS-512/2020]

bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor however, was not in a position to

satisfy the Court as to whether any other evidence/incriminating

material/ circumstance is available against the appellant except

the recovery of gold articles (sone ki kanthi and sone ki totiya).

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

This Court after perusing the FIR, charge sheet and

documents annexed to the charge sheet, prima facie finds that the

case against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.

It is a settled law that in a case which hinges on

circumstantial evidence, the incriminating facts and circumstances

should be such that they are incompatible with the innocence of

the accused.

This Court prima facie finds that only circumstance against

the appellant in the present case is the recovery of gold articles

(sone ki kanthi and sone ki totiya) allegedly worn by the

deceased, which admittedly do not contain any blood stain, and

the recovery in itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the

appellant in a case governed by circumstantial evidence. This

Court further prima facie finds that neither there is any recovery

of weapon at the instance of the petitioner nor other incriminating

evidence/ circumstance is available on record coupled with the

fact that FSL Report only indicated presence of human blood, with

the result that blood grouping was inconclusive. This Court prima

facie finds that no other circumstance or evidence is available on

(5 of 5) [CRLAS-512/2020]

record to substantiate the accusations levelled against the

appellant. Thus, this Court finds sufficient merit in the above

noted arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in

support of present bail application.

Any further comments on the merits of the case is likely to

prejudice the trial but, upon a consideration of the overall facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

there exists valid and just reasons to grant bail to the appellant

under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 11.06.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act

Cases), Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-

appellant Sohanram @ Sonaram S/o Pannaram arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.15/2019, registered at Police Station

Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural shall be released on bail;

provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two

surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court

on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail

application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

27-Prashant

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)