Om Prakash And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the judgment dated 23.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, whereby the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for the offence under Section 379 IPC to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant as well as other material witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution and both the courts below convicted the present petitioners only on the basis of statement of PW-7 Anand Singh, the Investigating Officer, which is per se illegal and therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against the present petitioners deserve to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the judgments passed by the learned courts below.

I have considered the arguments advanced by both parties and gone through the judgments impugned.

PW-1 Dinesh, who is the complainant in this case, has stated in the court that he does not know the accused-petitioners and accordingly, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Likewise, PW-3 Ranjeet, who was also material witness in this case, was declared hostile. PW-6, Dileep and PW-8 Naresh who were stated to be eyewitnesses, also declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, there is no material evidence against the present petitioners to the effect that they had stolen the motor-cycle of the complainant. Both the courts below have convicted the petitioners only on the basis of statement of PW-7 Anand Singh, the Investigating Officer, who only mentioned that he arrested the present petitioners and recovered the motor-cycle from them. This Court is of the opinion that when the complainant as well as other material witnesses does not support the story of the prosecution then it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.