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.