Ramratan S/O Shri Hemraj vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5446 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 189/2023

Ramratan S/o Shri Hemraj, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Village Badhpur, P.S. Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.
                                            ----Complainant-Victim-Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                    ----Respondent

2. Kailash Chand Son Of Bhagchand, Aged 55 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.

3. Rakesh @ Ramkesh Son of Kailash Chand, Aged 27 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.

4. Mukesh Son Of Jagannath, Aged 30 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.

5. Ramsingh Son Of Laxman, Aged 40 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.

6. Ramveer Son Of Kailash Chand, Aged 21 years, R/o Badhpur, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur.

                                                          --Accused-Respondents


For Complainant-             :     Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
Appellant
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asstt. Govt. Adv.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

                                    Judgment

03/10/2023

1.    The    Complainant-Appellant               has      preferred    this   appeal

aggrieved by judgment & order dated 23.05.2023 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case

No.13/2021, whereby accused-respondents No.2 to 6 (hereinafter

referred to as "accused-respondents") have been acquitted from

[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023]

the charges for offences under Sections 142/143, 341, 323/149,

379 & 302 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and in

alternate for offences under Sections 302/149 & 120-B of I.P.C.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a written

report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Ramratan Gurjar (PW-2), son of

deceased, wherein it was mentioned that on 28.08.2020 at 8:00

a.m., a fight took place between his father and the accused-

respondents with regard to some amount which was outstanding

towards the accused-respondents. It was also mentioned in the

F.I.R. that accused-respondents threatened to kill his father. It was

further mentioned that his father went to the temple and returned

at about 09:00 p.m. on 28.08.2020 and in the morning, her

mother found the body of his father hanging by rope from the tin

shed and his hands were also tied at the back and his ear rings

and golden Jantar were missing. On the said written report, police

registered the First Information Report No.0209/2020 and after

due investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the

accused-respondents.

3. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-

respondents for offences under Sections 142/143, 341, 323/149,

379 & 302 I.P.C. and in alternate Sections 302/149 & 120-B I.P.C.

Accused-respondents denied charges and sought trial, upon

which, as many as 19 witnesses, 34 documents and Articles 1 to

4, were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Accused-

respondents were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal

Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), wherein they denied the allegations

and stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated.

On behalf of the defence, Ex.D-1 to D-4, were exhibited. After

[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023]

hearing the parties including counsel for the complainant, learned

Court below has acquitted the accused-respondents from the

alleged offences, aggrieved by which, complainant-appellant, has

filed the present appeal.

4. It is contended by counsel appearing for the complainant-

appellant that the fact that dispute took place between the parties

on the date of the incident is established from the evidence

adduced before the Court. It is also contended that hands of the

deceased were tied at the back which points towards the

commission of the offence of murder. It is further contended that

Ramesh (PW-6) is the last seen witness, who has seen the

accused-respondents coming out of the Bada belonging to the

deceased at 02:00 a.m. in the intervening night of 28.08.2020 &

29.08.2020. It is contended that F.I.R. was lodged promptly and

names of the accused-respondents were mentioned in the F.I.R.,

thus there was no time gap to manipulate and falsely implicate the

accused-respondents. It is also contended that amount was due

towards the accused-respondents and they had threatened the

deceased.

5. We have considered the contentions and have carefully

perused the evidence available on record.

6. It is pertinent to note that Ramesh (PW-6) is the only last

seen witness, as Rambharat (PW-5) has turned hostile. As far as

presence of Ramesh (PW-6) is concerned, his name does not find

place in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1).

7. Rambilas (PW-1), brother of the deceased, has admitted that

Ramesh had informed them about seeing the accused-respondents

on the night of the occurrence. He has also admitted that he was

[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023]

present at the Police Station when Ramratan lodged the report. He

has also stated that it was mentioned to the police that Ramesh

had seen the incident as to why it was not mentioned in the F.I.R.,

he cannot tell.

8. It is important to note that written report was lodged by

Ramratan, son of the deceased and statement of Ramesh (PW-6)

was recorded by the police after four days of the incident. Had he

witnessed the incident, his name would be placed in the F.I.R. and

he would have given his statement immediately to the police.

There is nothing on record to justify the delay in recording the

statement of Ramesh (PW-6), thus it is evident that Ramesh is a

planted witness.

9. Vinod Kumar (PW-18), Investigating Officer, has specifically

stated that in the written report, there was no mention that

anyone had seen the accused-respondents at night near the place

of incident. He has also stated that F.I.R. was lodged on the basis

of doubt. He has further stated that fingerprints and footprints of

any of the accused-respondents were not found at the place of

occurrence and there is no direct evidence linking the accused-

respondents with the alleged offence. He has also stated that

complainant and other witnesses have not mentioned in their

statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Ramesh

(PW-6) had seen the accused-respondents on the occurrence

night. Thus, from the evidence of the Investigating Officer also, it

is evident that there was no evidence to connect the accused-

respondents with the alleged offence.

10. In addition, it may also be noted that there was no call

location or any other evidence to establish that accused-

[2023:RJ-JP:26138-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLAD-189/2023]

respondents were present in the Bada at the time of the alleged

incident. As far as the occurrence which is stated to have taken

place at 08:00 a.m. on 28.08.2020 is concerned, no report in this

regard has been lodged with the police. In relation to this incident

also, there is variance in the statement of witnesses.

11. The learned Trial Court has appropriately dealt with the

evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that no

case has been made out against the accused-respondents. In the

result, we do not find any force in the present Criminal Appeal and

the same is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage.

12. Office is directed to send back the record to the concerned

Court below along with certified copy of this judgment.

                                   (BHUWAN GOYAL),J                                              (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

                                   AMIT/9









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)