Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
SABINA, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
Jitesh Kumar Bansal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2019
Decided On : 29-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Hemant Gupta, Advocate for Dhanna Ram, Advocate
For the Respondent: Alka Bhatnagar
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court can interfere only if there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so, such as when the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 302/34, 380 AND 460 IPC - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT - PRINCIPLES
Fact of the Case:
Appellant challenged the acquittal of respondent No. 2 in a case involving robbery and murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed robbery in the complainant's house and murdered his wife. The trial court acquitted respondent No. 2, while convicting the co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the acquittal of respondent No. 2, finding that the trial court's reasons for acquittal were sound. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case during the trial, and that the recovery of stolen gold 'topas' from respondent No. 2 was doubtful.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting respondent No. 2.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court did not err in acquitting respondent No. 2. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case during the trial, and that the recovery of stolen gold 'topas' from respondent No. 2 was doubtful. The court also noted that the trial court had given sound reasons for acquitting respondent No. 2.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal.
ORDER :
1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the part of the judgment dated 12.2.2019, whereby respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
2. Respondent No. 2 along with his co-accused Ramkesh and Lalo had faced trial in FIR No. 149 dated 6.4.2014 registered at Police Station Mania, District Dholpur under Section 460 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
3. As per prosecution story, accused had committed robbery in the house of the complainant and had committed the murder of his wife Baby.
4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against respondent No. 2 and his co-accused. Charges were framed against respondent No. 2 under Sections 302, 302/34, 380 and 460 IPC.
5. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.2.2019, ordered the acquittal of respondent No. 2 and conviction of co-accused Ramkesh and Lalo with regard to the charge framed against them. Hence, the complainant has filed the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence against all the accused was the same. Hence, trial Court has erred in ordering the acquittal of respondent No. 2. Prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against respondent No. 2. Recovery of stolen gold 'topas' was effected from the respondent No. 2 during investigation.
7. Learned trial Court while ordering acquittal of respondent No. 2 has taken in consideration the fact that material witnesses PW-2 Pradeep, PW-5 Shamsher Khan, PW-6 Pawan Kumar, PW-7 Ratangiri, PW-8 Rameshwar Giri, PW-10 Narendra, PW-11 Yashveer, PW-12 Amit Kumar, PW-13 Shriram Tyagi, PW-14 Hariom, PW-15 Bhagwan Singh, PW-19 Leeladhar and PW-28 Jaiprakash had not supported the prosecution case during trial.
8. As per PW-4 Jitesh (complainant), Shriram Tyagi, Bhagwan Singh and others had seen Ramkesh and three other persons running away from the roof of their house. However, Shriram Tyagi and Bhagwan Singh did not support the prosecution case during trial. Even the complainant had not named respondent No. 2 as one of the persons who had been seen by other prosecution witnesses running away from the spot.
9. PW-3 Dinesh, brother of the complainant has stated that on inquiry, they came to know that Ramkesh, Lakhan, Lalo and Vishvendra had committed the murder of his sister-in-law. The statement of PW-3 can be said to be hearsay.
10. PW-9 Laxminarayan is brother of the complainant. The said witness had deposed that he had seen respondent No. 2 running away from the roof of the house of the deceased along with his co-accused.
11. FIR in the present case was lodged on 6.4.2014. Statement of PW-9 Laxminarayan (Exhibit D4) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police on 9.4.2014. However, in the said statement names of the accused were not disclosed by the said witness. Rather, in the said statement it has been stated by PW-9 Laxminarayan that some unknown persons had committed the murder of Baby after looting articles from the house. PW-9 then named the respondent No. 2 as well as other accused in his statement recorded on 13.4.2014 (Exhibit D5). There is no explanation as to why the names of the accused were not disclosed by PW-9 Laxminarayan before the police when the FIR was lodged or when his statement was recorded on 9.4.2014 after three days of the recording of the FIR. The said witness is the real brother of the complainant and in case he had actually seen the respondent No. 2 running away from the spot, he would have told his brother about the said fact and name of respondent No. 2 would have been incorporated in the FIR or in the statement of PW-9 recorded before the police on 9.4.2014. Hence, learned trial Court rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-9.
12. It has been noticed by the trial Court that PW-30 Vinay Kumar Nagayach, SDM, Dholpur deposed in his cross-examination that the articles taken out from the packets did not have any thread tied aroun
