The State of Rajasthan vs Sumer Singh son of Sangram

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant - State being aggrieved with the judgment dated

9.7.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali (for short ''the trial

court'') in Sessions Case No.6/1981, whereby the trial court has

acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable

under Sections 436, 307, 147, 148, 149 / 454 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.5.1979, Chiranji Lal

(PW-6) has lodged a report at the Police Station Pali alleging that

one labour namely Kumbha Ram, who was working in his factory

has died in an accident by falling in the water tank on 16.5.1979.

Kumbha Ram was taken to the hospital, but he became dead.

Thereafter on 20.5.1979, in the morning, labourers of the factory

gathered in the factory premises led by Sawai Singh, Chuni Lal,

Kailash Arora, Sumer Singh, Tikma Ram and others had raised

slogans that the killers be hanged and the factory be put to fire. It

is alleged that around 150-200 laborers in the leadership of the

above named persons came out of the factory and took out a

procession and got the factories closed forcibly and thereafter had

given a representation to the District Collector regarding the death

of labour Kumbha Ram.

It is further alleged by the complainant that today in the

morning all the above named persons along with 150-200 persons

had again took out a procession and got the factories closed

forcibly and again went to the District Collector''s office and

thereafter the said procession reached in the industrial area No.2,

where in the leadership of Sawai Singh and Chhuni Lal had forcibly

entered in to the factory premises and destroyed the property and

threw stones and had also lit fire in his factory. The employees of

the factory namely Magraj and Shyam ran away from there,

however, several properties of the factory have been destroyed in

the fire and if the employees would not ran away from there, then,

they could have been died in the fire.

On receiving this report, the Police Station Pali has registered

an FIR No.131/1979 for the offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 149, 436 and 307 IPC and started investigation. After

investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the

accused respondents and the trial court has framed charges

against them for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

454, 436, 149, 307 / 149 IPC.

To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the

prosecution has produced as many as 17 witnesses and has got

exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused

respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no

evidence was produced in defence.

The trial court has observed that only three witnesses

namely Magraj (PW-16), Umar (PW-13) and Shyam Sunder

(PW-2) have supported the prosecution story, whereas, the other

prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story

and turned hostile.

The trial court has discussed the evidence of Magraj

(PW-16), Umar (PW-13) and Shyam Sunder (PW-2) in detail and

held that the said prosecution witnesses has named Chhuni Lal,

Sawai Singh and Bhagirath only and have not specified the role of

other accused persons. The trial court has also taken into

consideration the contradictions in the statements of the

witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story and found

that there are severe contradictions in their statements and the

evidence of the said witnesses is not corroborative with each

other. It is also observed by the trial court that during the course

of investigation, the police has not conducted the test

identification parade of any of the accused by the alleged eye

witnesses and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution

has proved that the accused respondents had committed the

offence, for which, they have been charged. The trial court has

also observed that the prosecution has failed to produce the I.O.

in evidence and the accused respondents had no occasion to cross

examine him and this lacunae on the part of the prosecution is

fatal. The trial court has also taken into consideration the

contradictions in the court as well as police statements of the

prosecution witnesses and held that the said evidence of those

witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story cannot be

relied upon.

Having regard the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to

prove the charges against the accused respondents, for which,

they have been charged beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,

the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the

accused respondents from the charges levelled against them.

Resultantly, this criminal appeal being bereft of force is

hereby dismissed.