Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 145
(Rajasthan High Court)
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balu Ram & Anr. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
HON'BLE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J.
State of Rajasthan
Versus
Balu Ram & Anr.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1997, decided on 13.04.2016
Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor;
S.G. Ojha and Pradeep Choudhary, for Respondents
Headnote:Penal Code, Sec. 302, 323 and Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 3(2)(5) — Appeal against acquittal — Injuries on body of deceased caused by sharp edged weapon — Knife recovered at the instance of accused respondent — Testimony of eye witness not corroborated by any other independent witness — Contradictions in the statement recorded by police u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. and in the trial — Investigating officer observed that knife recovered is to be of use for cutting vegetables — No blood was found on the knife as per FSL report — Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt — Finding of trial court confirmed. (Paras 21 & 22)
Appeal dismissed.
n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 302] 323 vkSj vuqlwfpr tkfr o vuqlwfpr tu tkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989] /kkjk 3¼2½¼5½ & nks"keqfDr ds fo:) vihy & e`rd ds 'kjhj ij rst /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls migfr dkfjr dh xbZ & vfHk;qDr & izR;FkhZ dh fu'kkunsgh ij pkdw cjken fd;k & fdlh vU; fu"i{k lk{kh ls p'en~nhn lk{kh ds lk{; dh lEiq"Vh ugha djkbZ & iqfyl }kjk na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 161 ds rgr vkSj fopkj.k esa ntZ c;ku esa fojks/kkHkkl & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us ;g fVIi.kh dh fd cjken pkdw lCth dkVus gsrq iz;qDr gksus okyk gS & ,Q-,l-,y- fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj pkdw ij dksbZ jDr ugha ik;k x;k & vfHk;kstu viuk ekeyk lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu"d"kZ dh lEiqf"V dhA ¼in la[;k 21 o 22½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
2. As per the brief facts of the case on 13.12.1995 at 12.30 pm the complainant Sadhu Ram (P.W.11) filed a written report (Ex.P/1) before the SHO, Police Station, Taranagar, camp Sahawa stating therein that on 12.12.1995 at about 5.00 pm in the evening an information was given to him by P.W.1 Sunder S/o Shivkaran and Pratap S/o Ladhu Ram that your son has been killed by the respondents Balu Ram and Govind Singh and his body is lying on the way. Upon receiving such information, the complainant immediately went on spot and saw that body of his son Golu Ram was lying on the street and blood was spread near the body and prayed that action may be taken against Balu Ram and Govind Singh in accordance with law.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the FIR no.149 dated 13.12.1995 (Ex.P/2) was registered at Police Station Taranagar at 1.30 pm under Section 302 and under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid FIR, the SHO commenced investigation. During investigation site plan (Ex.P/10 and P/10A) was prepared in the presence of witnesses Ram Kumar, Ridmal, Pala Ram and complainant Sadhu Ram. The body of the deceased Bhalu Ram was taken to the Primary Health Center, Sahawa for post mortem where Senior Medical Officer Dr. Prashant Khatri conducted post mortem and gave post mortem report (Ex.P/3) on 13.12.1995. After post mortem, the body of the deceased Bhalu Ram was handed over to the family members. Soon after the occurrence, Panchnama of dead body was also prepared on 13.12.1995 in the presence of witnesses Sadhu Ram, Ram Kumar, Ridmal, Pala Ram and Kheraj Ram. After necessary investigation respondent Balu Ram And Govind Singh were arrested vide Ex.P/27 and Ex.P/25 on 14.12.1995. After arrest upon information given by Balu Ram under Section 27 of the Evidence Act blood stained knife was recovered vide Ex.P/24 in the presence of two witnesses Bhagwana Ram and Surendra Singh.
5. After completing investigation, the SHO Police Station Rajnagar filed charge-sheet against the respondents in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar from where the case was committed to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge for trial, later transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Churu for trial.
6. In the trial, after hearing arguments, charge under Section 323 IPC was framed against respondent Govind Singh and charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act was framed against the respondent Balu Ram. After framing charge, the prosecution produced evidence to prove its case. In all statements of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and after recording statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied all the allegations made by the witnesses. The respondents Balu Ram said that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the respondent Govind Singh said that he has also been falsely implicated in the case because one Hanuman Singh is having enmity with his family and Hanuman Singh and Sadhu Ram are having good relations, therefore, with the connivance Hanuman Singh, his name has been mentioned by Sadhu Ram in the FIR to implicate him in criminal case. In defence statement of DW-1 Raju and DW-2 Suraj Bhan were recorded, thereafter, case was finally heard and vide judgment dated 30.10.1995 the learned trial court acquitted both the respondents from the charges levelled against them.
7. In this appeal, the State of Rajast
