State of Rajasthan vs Sajjan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh

As per the information received from the SHO, Police Station,

Gachhipura, District Nagaur vide its letter dated 07.06.2017, the

respondent No.1 Sajjan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh and the

respondent No.2 Bodu Singh S/o Sugan Singh have died. The

letter dated 07.06.2017 be taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2

has also confirmed that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have died,

therefore, this appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-State is

dismissed as abated against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 only.

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-State being aggrieved with the judgment dated

01.12.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta (hereinafter

referred to as ''the trial court'') in Sessions Case No. 32/88,

whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for

the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 307 read with

Section 149, 452 and 323 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of parchabayan

(Exhibit-P/8) of PW-10 Mohan Singh, recorded on 18.08.1987, the

FIR No.75/1987 (Exhibit-P/11) was registered at Police Station

Gachhipura, District Nagaur on 18.08.1987 against the accused

respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

149, 323, 307 and 452 IPC.

After concluding the investigation, the police filed charge-

sheet against the accused respondents and the trial court framed

charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections

147 / 148, 307 read with Section 149, 452 and 323 IPC.

To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the

prosecution had produced as many as 15 witnesses and also got

exhibited several documents. The statements of accused

respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the

respondent No.5-Anop Singh and respondent No.2-Bodu Singh

also gave their evidence in defence as DW-1 and DW-3

respectively and one another witness Surjan Singh also produced

in defence as DW-2.

The trial court, after haring learned counsel for the parties

and after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the

prosecution as well as by the defence, has acquitted the accused

respondents for the offences for which they have been charged

vide impugned judgment.

Being aggrieved with this, the appellant-State has preferred

this criminal appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution

has produced cogent and reliable evidence to prove the charges

against the accused respondents, however, the trial court, without

taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and in right

prospective, has illegally acquitted the accused respondents for

the offences for which they have been charged.

Learned Public Prosecutor has invited attention of this Court

towards the statements of PW-2 Banne Singh, PW-3 Guman

Kanwar (injured) PW-5 Jagmal Singh, PW-6 Gopal Singh and PW-

10 Mohan Singh and argued that from the evidence of the said

witnesses, who are the eye witnesses of the incident, the charges

against the accused respondents of brutally assaulting the injured

PW-3 Guman Kanwar and PW-10 Mohan Singh with the intention

to kill PW-10 Mohan Singh has been proved. It is also argued that

the Investigating Agency has recovered the weapons, used in the

commission of offence by the accused respondents and the

injuries upon the body of the injured persons have also been

verified from the prosecution evidence.

Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that the

trial court has grossly erred in ignoring the above prosecution

evidence and illegally acquitted the accused respondents. It is,

therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment may kindly be set

aside and the accused respondent Nos.3 to 6 may kindly be

convicted for the offences for which they have been charged and

sentenced them suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.3 to 6 has argued that the trial court has taken into

consideration the entire evidence available on record and

thereafter given a specific finding that the prosecution has failed

to prove the charges against the accused respondents by placing

cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the respondent Nos.3

to 6 cannot be convicted for the offence for which they have been

charged.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

scrutinized the record of the case.

The trial court has acquitted the accused respondents while

taking into consideration the fact that though, the incident

occurred on 03.08.1989, but the first information report regarding

the incident was filed only on 18.08.1987. The trial court is of the

opinion that might be the injured PW-10 Moahn Singh was not in a

position to file complaint regarding the incident as he was in

hospital, but the another witness viz. PW-2 Banne Singh, who said

to had been present on the incident, could file the complaint. The

trial court, therefore, is of the opinion that the delay in filing the

FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. The trial court has also

taken into consideration the fact that the complainant party has

failed to explain the injuries received by the accused parties in the

incident and as a matter of fact most of the witnesses have been

denied that the accused respondents have received injuries in the

incident, whereas the documentary evidence suggests otherwise.

The trial court has also observed that the place of incident was

changed by the prosecution witnesses and this fact raises doubt

about the prosecution story. The trial court has further observed

that it is for the prosecution to prove the charges against the

accused respondents, however, in the present case as the

prosecution witnesses are not believable and their evidence is not

corroborating from each other, the prosecution has failed to prove

the charges against the accused respondents beyond reasonable

doubt. The relevant findings of the trial court recorded in the

impugned judgment are reproduced herein under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by

the rival parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the

case, I don''t find any perversity in the finding arrived at by the

trial court in the impugned judgment.

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned

judgment.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.