AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.