High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 09 RAJ CK 0037

State of Rajasthan vs Swaroopa Ram @ Patta S/o Kanaji

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 September 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopal Krishan Vyas, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
317 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

65 paragraphs · 636 words
1.

The instant criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the

State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of Cr.P.C .

seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 25 th of

October, 2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in

Session Case No.3/2012, whereby the learned trial court acquitted

the respondent from the charge leveled against him for offence

under Section 302 of IPC.

2.

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on

21.05.2008 complainant- Raju Singh (PW.4) at 10.00 AM

submitted a written report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station- Jalore for

the incident occurred in the Open Air Camp, Keshvana, Jalore. It

was stated in the written complaint that while he was on his duty,

at about 05.00 AM he was informed by Rajendra that one prisoner

Lakharam was crying while sitting on his cot and blood was oozing

out from his head. Thereafter, prisoner was immediately taken to

hospital in vehicle jeep along with driver Ishwar Singh and

manager Manaram, where during treatment Lakha Ram died.

3.

In the complaint is further stated that other prisoner

Swaroopa Ram @ Patta who was residing with him in Open Air

Camp was also found missing. Upon the aforesaid complaint,

F.I.R. No.142/2008 was registered at Police Station- Jalore for

offence under Sections 303 and 224 of IPC and respondent-

Swaroopa @ Patta was arrested vide Ex.P/9.

4.

After investigation charge sheet against the respondent was

filed under Sections 303 and 224 IPC in the court of Addl. Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, from where the case was committed to

Sessions Court for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after

providing opportunity of hearing to the parties framed charge

under Sections 302 and 224 IPC against the respondent and trial

was commenced. However, during trial, an application was moved

under Section 216 Cr.P.C., for amending the charge, the learned

trial court amended the charge on 07.10.2015 for offence under

Sections 302 and 224 of IPC.

5.

The learned trial court after recording circumstantial

evidence, finally acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled

against him for offence under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment

dated 25.10.2016. Against the said judgment, leave has been

sought by the State Government.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor argued that inspite of availability

of circumstantial evidence on record, the learned trial court

acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him,

therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial

court deserves to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor further

submitted that undisputedly the respondent and deceased were

residing in one room at Open Air Camp, Jalore and in the morning

Lakha Ram, the deceased, was found injured and the respondent

was missing from the room, therefore, a presumption was to be

drawn by the trial court so as to connect the respondent with the

crime. However, unfortunately trial court committed a grave error

to acquit the respondent from the charge levelled against him,

therefore, the instant criminal leave to appeal may kindly be

allowed.

7.

After considering the entire facts of the case and evidence on

record, it is revealed that there is no evidence of last seen, or

evidence as to from which date the respondent was missing and

no other evidence viz. blood stained clothes, weapon or any

evidence of any quarrel came on record and charge sheet was

filed only on the basis of presumption that on the date of incident,

the respondent was missing, therefore, the learned trial court

acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him

while giving finding that there is no evidence of last seen,

recovery of any article or weapon. Therefore, we are of the

opinion that it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal against the

judgment impugned, hence, the present leave to appeal is hereby

dismissed.