Anant Ram vs State And Ors

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant victim Anant Ram under Section 378 (4) CrPC read with Section 372 CrPC for assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.30/2016, whereby the respondent No.2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges under Sections 392/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC.

We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Mr. S.S. Gour, learned counsel representing the appellant victim and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the original record. The FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by one Ramesh Kumar Agarwal with the allegation that he owned an Innova car bearing registration No. HR-44-H-7453, which was purchased in the name of his relative Purushottam Singh. The informant was in possession of the vehicle for 15 days. On 24.11.2015, the informant sent his driver Vinod Kumar with the said vehicle to Sardarshahar. The driver did not reach Sardarshahar nor was any information received regarding his whereabouts. His phone was also answering switched off.

On the basis of this report, an FIR No.828/2015 was registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Town for the offences under Section 379 IPC. During the course of investigation, it came to light that Vinod Kumar was murdered and the vehicle was looted. The Investigating officer initially filed charge-sheet against accused Raghuveer @ Shooter for the offences under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 34 IPC. 15 witnesses were examined during trial of Raghuveer, whereafter, another accused Vedprakash @ Vediya was arrested and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. Thereafter the trial was resumed. A total of 23 witnesses were examined and 37 documents and 4 articles were exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case.

The trial court, after appreciating the entire evidence available on record and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defence as well as learned Public Prosecutor proceeded to acquit the respondents Nos.2 and 3 from the charges vide the impugned judgment.

The contention of Mr. S.S. Guar, learned counsel representing the appellant victim, being the father of the deceased, was that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in the correct perspective and acquit the accused for flimsy unsustainable reasons. He, thus craved admittance of the appeal.

On perusal of the impugned judgment and the record of the case, it is apparent that the foundation of the prosecution case was based on the evidence of witnesses Mukesh Kumar (P.W.2) and Mahendra Kumar (P.W.6), who gave evidence of last seen against the accused. Both the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They refused the identify the accused as the person, who had taken the car of deceased Vinod Kumar on hire. The Innova car was recovered form Phalodi while lying in an open exposed condition. Thus, no incriminating inference could have been drawn from the recovery of the car, which was allegedly effected in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

In this background, manifestly, there was no significant direct or circumstantial evidence on the entire record, which could be considered sufficient so as to connect the respondents with the crime. We are in conformity with the trial court's findings that there is no such evidence on the record of the case, by effect whereof, the respondents can be even remotely connected with the murder of Shri Vinod Kumar. The impugned judgment was rendered by the trial court after thorough and apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not warrant any interference whatsoever.

Thus, the instant appeal filed by the victim Anant Ram under Section 378 (4) CrPC read with Section 372 CrPC is dismissed as being devoid of merit.