The State of Rajasthan vs Laxman Singh S/o Tagsingh

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant - State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 24 th

September, 1994 passed by the Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jalore

(for short ''the trial court'') in Special Criminal Case No.7/1993,

whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for

the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 325 / 34 IPC

and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (for short ''the Act of 1989'').

Brief facts of the case are that Narsi (PW-1) has filed a

written report Ex.P/1 on 17.1.1993, at about 10 AM, at the Police

Station Sanchore alleging that Lacchu and others had assaulted

his brother Khangara and had also snatched some goods from him

and in respect of that incident, he along with Khangara, Pratapa,

Karsan, Chatra, Thana and Masra went to the Police Station for

lodging an FIR. After registering of the FIR, when they were

returning to their village Jakhal in a jeep, then, the accused

persons met them near Karola Fanta and stopped them and told

that since they have filed report against them, they will teach a

lesson to them. Thereafter, the accused persons had dragged

them out from the jeep and started assaulting them and also

abused them with castiest remarks. It is alleged that the accused

persons had broken the hands and legs of Pratapa and Chatra and

thereafter took them away in the jeep.

On receiving this written report from Narsi (PW-1), the police

has registered an FIR against the accused respondents for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and

365 IPC and under Section 3 of the Act of 1989. After conclusion

of the investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the

accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.

The trial court has framed charges against accused

respondent Laxman Singh and Guman Singh for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC and under

Section 3 of the Act of 1989, whereas, it has framed charges

against accused respondent Dhanna Singh son of Mal Singh for

the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC and

framed charges against accused Dhan Singh son of Sawai Singh

for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and in

alternative under Section 325 / 34 IPC. The accused respondents

have denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.

To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the

prosecution has produced as many as 11 witnesses and has got

exhibited 26 documents. The statements of the accused

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

witness was produced in defence.

The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence

produced by the parties concerned has acquitted the accused

respondents for the offences, for which, they have been charged.

Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the

statements of Narsi (PW-1), Pratapa (PW-2), Thana Ram (PW-5)

and Chatra (PW-6), it is proved that the accused respondents had

stopped the above witnesses when they were returning to their

village after lodging the report at the police station and brutally

assaulted them. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted

that the sticks used by the accused respondents for assaulting the

injured persons have been recovered by the police and as per the

evidence of Dr.R.L.Modi (PW-15), the allegation of inflicting

grievous injuries on the body of the injured persons is sufficiently

proved.

Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the trial

court without appreciating the evidence produced by the

prosecution in right perspective has illegally acquitted the accused

respondents for the offences, for which, they have been charged.

Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore prayed that the impugned

judgment passed by the trial court be set aside and the accused

respondents be convicted for the offences, for which, they have

been charged and be punished suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued

that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the

accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt as there are severe

contradictions and improvements in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses and the trial court after taking into

consideration the same has rightly acquitted the accused

respondents. Learned counsel for the accused respondents has

therefore prayed that there is no merit in this appeal and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned

judgment and carefully scrutinized the record.

It is not in dispute that the prosecution witnesses namely

Mohan (PW-3), Jawara Ram (PW-4), Jagmal (PW-7), Masara

(PW-8) and Khangara (PW-9) have not supported the prosecution

story and turned hostile. The witnesses of the recovery of sticks

allegedly used by the accused respondents in the commission of

crime have also denied the said recovery but they had admitted

their thumb impressions on the recovery memos.

The prosecution witnesses Narsi (PW-1), Pratapa Ram

(PW-2), Thana Ram (PW-5) and Chatra (PW-6) were produced as

eye witnesses of the incident, however, the trial court has

observed that there are severe contradictions in the statements of

the above prosecution witnesses. Narsi (PW-1) has not even named Laxman Singh as assailant.

The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that

Chatra (PW-6) has stated before the court that the incident was

happened on the day of ''makar-sakranti'', which falls on 14 th

January, whereas, the FIR in relation to the incident was lodged on

17.1.1993 and no explanation for the delay in filing the FIR has

been given by the prosecution.

After discussing the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses in

detail, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused

respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, particularly the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses, this

Court is of the opinion that the evidence of those eye witnesses is

contrary to each other and they have also improved a lot while

deposing before the trial court, thus, the trial court has rightly not

relied upon the said piece of evidence and has rightly acquitted

the accused respondents from the offences, for which, they have

been charged.

Resultantly, this criminal appeal being bereft of force is

hereby dismissed.