Sohanram @ Sonaram vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Kuldeep Mathur, J

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.

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 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 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 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.