Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Mandar Singh @ Sukhdarshan Singh And Anr on 23 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 122/1995
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mandar Singh @ Sukhdarshan Singh S/o Shri Meethu
Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, resident of Chak 2-A,
Ganganagar.
2. Jalandhar Singh S/o Shri Meethu Singh, b/c Jat Sikh,
resident of Chak-2A, Police Station, Anupgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
Police Station Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Accused/Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.C.S.Ojha, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anil Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 11.09.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 23.09.2024
[Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :
1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 01.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar on the file of Session Case
No.51/1993, wherein and whereby the respondents were
acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 302/34,
326/34, 325/34, 325, 323 & 201 of IPC.
2) Against the said acquittal, the present appeal is at the
instance of the State.
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
3) Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on
19.04.1993 at about 3:30 p.m., Gurudev Singh, uncle of the
deceased-Major Singh lodged a report at Police Station Anupgarh
stating that on 17.04.1993, Major Singh and two brothers Binder
Singh and Balveer Singh went to the field for harvesting crop.
While he was returning, he found that Major Singh was at the
liquor shop situated at Chak 137 RD Head. Binder Singh and
Balveer Singh also saw that the deceased-Major Singh was
consuming the liquor at liquor shop at about 7:30 pm and they
insisted Major Singh to come along with them. However, he could
not accompany them and did not turn out the entire night to the
house. When the complainant went to Chak 137 RD Head next day
morning at about 6:30 p.m., he met with Mangla Ram and Goma
Ram. They informed the complainant that they had seen the
deceased Major Singh. He was being forcibly dragged by Mandar
Singh and after that, Mandar Singh's mother had heard crying
'maar diya, maar diya". The complainant went to the house of the
relatives of the accused and verified presence of Major Singh but
he could not find Major Singh. On suspicion, when they went to
get information from accused-Mandar Singh, the door of the house
of accused was blocked and all the accused were absconded.
Thus, suspicion was entertained on Mandar Singh.
4) On the basis of the said report, the police registered the
FIR No.113/1993 (Exhibit-P/2) at Police Station Anupgarh for
offence under Section 364 of IPC. While the investigation was in
progress, the brother of the deceased came to the Police Station
and informed that the dead body of Major Singh was found in the
canal. On such information, the Investigating Officer went to the
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
place of dead body and after conducting site inspection,
panchnama and inquest on the dead body, shifted the dead body
to the hospital for postmortem. After postmortem examination
was conducted, the body was handed over to the relatives of the
deceased. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer arrested the
accused-persons and on interrogation, they made disclosure
statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and
basing on such confessions, slippers of the deceased, which were
hidden in the nearby fields, were recovered under Exhibit- P/9.
The recovery of lathi (stick) was also made under Exhibit-P/13.
5) After concluding the investigation, the police filed
chargesheet. The final investigation reveals that the accused and
the deceased had consumed alcohol and a quarrel took place in
between them and the accused allegedly killed the deceased by
strangulating and thrown the dead body into the canal by inflicting
multiple injuries on his person with stick.
6) On appearance of the accused-appellants before the trial
court, charges for offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 326
read with 34, 325, 323 and 201 of IPC were framed against the
accused. The prosecution in support of its case has examined in all
16 witnesses and relied upon documents under Exhibit-P/1 to
P/34. The accused have produced the documents under Exhibit-D/
1 to D/4 in defence evidence.
7) The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on
record found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt basing on the circumstantial evidence and
accordingly, acquitted both the accused of the offences charged.
Hence, the present appeal by the State.
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
8) The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-
State has contended that the learned trial court has not properly
appreciated the various circumstances upon which the prosecution
relied upon, more particularly the last seen theory and the
recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Public
Prosecutor further submitted that all the circumstances, upon
which the prosecution relied upon, have clinchingly established
that the accused were authors of the crime. They killed the
deceased by strangulating and thrown the dead body in the canal.
Therefore, he prayed to reverse the finding of acquittal and urged
for conviction of the accused-respondents for the offences
charged.
9) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
accused submitted that all the witnesses to the last seen theory
have not supported the prosecution version. PW-5 Bhadar Ram is
the only person who states that the accused-persons were forcibly
taking the deceased; one accused was holding legs and other was
holding hands and it was a dark night. He had not seen the faces
of culprits but he claimed that he recognized them with voice.
According to learned counsel for the respondents, this witness was
a planted witness and the same is clear from his own evidence,
which shows that it was a dark night and he had perceived the
accused only by hearing their voices. His statement is also not
supported by any other witnesses.
10) The learned counsel also contended that PW-4 Roopa
Ram and PW-13 Prithvi Raj are the only witnesses who have seen
the deceased and Mandar Singh consuming alcohol at the liquor
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
shop. The evidence of PW-4, who was the owner of the liquor
shop, clearly indicates that the deceased and Mandar Singh had
never visited together to his shop. They independently came to
the shop. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it
was the common place for consumption of alcohol by every
customer of the liquor shop. The evidence of PW-13 clearly shows
that he had left the shop prior to the deceased and accused-
Mandar Singh left from liquor shop. It means this witness is only
witness to the consumption of alcohol by the deceased and the
accused-Mandar Singh; and it was common platform for every
customer to drink at the said place. Therefore, their evidence has
no help to the prosecution to prove that the deceased and the
accused went together while leaving the liquor shop.
11) The learned counsel for the respondent-accused also
contended that the other circumstantial evidence is that the
accused-persons along with their mother were seen near the place
of offence. The evidence of PW-3 Goma Ram indicates that when
he along with Mangalaram went to see the cries of Mandar Singh
at the request of mother of the accused, after having the tea, they
had only seen the mother and her two sons proceeding towards
their home. Mandar Singh and other accused were holding sticks
and Mandar Singh had injuries on his body. These evidence do not
indicate that they saw the deceased with the accused. Their
evidence is only to show that the accused were seen going to the
house and there were injuries on the body of Mandar Singh. These
injuries could have been possible when Mandar Singh in an
inebriated condition fell on the ground and such an injury has no
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
relevance to connect the accused for the exhibition of offence
against the deceased.
12) The last contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent is that alleged slippers of the deceased were claimed
to have been recovered basing on the disclosure statement of the
accused. However, the slippers were not identified to that of the
deceased. The recovery of such slippers is not incriminating
material connecting the accused with the alleged crime. Therefore,
such an evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. So far as
other recoveries made in pursuance of disclosure statement of the
accused is not incriminating evidence as there is no FSL report in
this regard. Therefore, such recoveries have no bearing on the
accused involvement for the offences charged. The trial court has
properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted
the respondents. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13) We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the respondents-accused and carefully perused
the record of the case.
14) A close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that the
prosecution relied upon three circumstances. The first
circumstance is that the accused and the deceased were seen
together at the liquor shop. To support the first circumstance, the
prosecution examined PW-4 Roopa Ram and PW-13 Prithvi Raj. A
close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4 show that he was the
owner of the liquor shop. He stated in his statement that the
deceased and the accused were the regular customers to the
liquor shop apart from other persons and he also admitted in his
cross-examination that they used to come to liquor shop
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
independently and on the day of incident also as usual they came
and consumed liquor and went away. Similar is the evidence of
PW-13, whose evidence shows that he was also in the company of
Vijay who was taking liquor on the said shop. The evidence of this
witness also shows that when he along with Vijay left the liquor
shop, the deceased and Mandar Singh were still consuming the
liquor. The place where they were last seen together is the liquor
shop where Mandar Singh and the deceased were regular
customers. They were in habit of independently reaching to that
place to consume the liquor. This evidence would not help the
prosecution to link the accused to the last seen theory.
15) The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is
that PW-3 Goma Ram and PW-6 Mangla Ram allegedly seen both
the accused lifting away the deceased. A close scrutiny of
evidence of PWs 3 & 6 show that PW-3 was a watchman watching
the Indira Gandhi Canal. Both these witnesses said that mother of
Mandar Singh had heard the voice of Mandar Singh crying for
help. On hearing such a cry, she allegedly made call to them to
visit the place where from she heard voices of Mandar Singh and
asked them to bring Mandar Singh to the house. Their evidence
shows that after having tea, they went to see Mandar Singh and
they found that both the accused and their mother were going to
their home. Mandar Singh was holding stick and he was inebriated
and sustained injuries. There evidence also shows that they could
not see the face of Mandar Singh or any other accused except
identifying Mandar Singh by his voice. Their evidence is also not
helpful to prove the last seen theory. The other evidence is of PW-
5 Bhadar Ram, which specifically indicates that he noticed both
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
the accused dragging the deceased Major Singh. One of the
accused was holding legs and another was holding the hands of
the deceased. They both took the deceased to the canal side and
later, he went back to his house. In the cross-examination, he has
stated that the place where he had seen the incident is Chak 8 A,
which is 2-3 km away from Chak 137 Head. His cross-examination
also shows that he watched the entire scene by hiding himself at
that place and he could not see Mandar Singh as it was a dark
night but according to him, he could identify Mandar Singh with
his voice. If the evidence of this witness is closely scrutinized, he
claimed to be direct witness of the incident but if he had seen the
incident, he could not keep quite till the police examined him. It is
not known how the police identified this witness as an eyewitness
to the incident. This witness was cited subsequently. In the initial
report, there was no reference of this witness witnessing the
incident. It appears that this witness was a planted witness and
his evidence appears to be unnatural seeing the silent conduct of
this witness having seen the execution of offence. Therefore, the
evidence of this witness is also not much helpful to the
prosecution.
16) As rightly contended by learned counsel for the
respondents, the slippers of the deceased were recovered basing
on disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. However, it is not proved by the prosecution that
slippers, which were recovered, belong to the deceased. No
witness has identified such slippers. Therefore, recovery of such
slippers does not help to the prosecution. Apart from the above
recovery, there was also recovery of stick, which also found having
[2024:RJ-JD:38387-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-122/1995]
no incriminating evidence. Such stick is commonly available in
farming society. Such a recovery of stick, without there being any
material incriminating, does not help to the prosecution to point
out the involvement of the accused for the offence charged. In
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court has
not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment
acquitting the respondents of the offences charged.
17) In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the State is
hereby dismissed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
