[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

O R D E R

D.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.221/2013

State of Rajasthan

Versus

Gehri Lal & Ors.

Date of Order :: 29.11.2013

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Mr. K.R. Bishnoi – Public Prosecutor

BY THE COURT :

By this application, leave is sought to challenge the

judgment dated 21.06.2013 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Rajsamand acquitting respondents Gehri Lal,

Dinesh S/o Mohan Lal and Dinesh S/o Tulsi Ram from the

charge relating to commission of offences punishable under

Section 394, 397, 398, 460, 302 and 302/34 IPC.

It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that at

the instance of accused-respondents certain valuable articles

were recovered and no explanation with regard to those was

given and as such, that is evidence reliable to record the

conviction, but the trial court failed to appreciate this aspect

[2]

of the matter in correct perspective.

We have examined the judgment impugned. The

incident in question is dated 06.11.2010. At the instance of

accused Gehri Lal, a sambal and a silver coin were recovered

after lapse of about 11 months from the date of incident. An

information as per the prosecution was given by co-accused

Dinesh S/o Tulsi Ram and on the basis of that, a silver idol

and a gold polished idol were recovered. This recovery too

was made after lapse of about 11 months. It is pertinent to

note that the attesting witnesses pertaining to the recoveries

aforesaid, Mr. Chiman Singh (P.W.11) and Pradeep Kumar

(P.W.13), did not support the prosecution case. As per these

witnesses, their signatures were obtained on recovery memos

at the police station. So far as third accused Dinesh S/o

Mohan Lal is concerned, no recovery at his instance was made,

though a disclosure as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act was made by him relating to an amount of Rs.12,000/-

said to be looted during the course of crime. The recoveries

on which the prosecution relies have not been established

before the trial court. We are also of the view that the

recoveries, which were made after lapse of about 11 months

and not substantiated by the attesting witnesses, in normal

course cannot be taken into consideration for recording

[3]

conviction. No other evidence is also available on record

forming a complete chain of circumstances indicating only one

conclusion about involvement of the respondents in crime

concerned, as such, we do not find any wrong with the

conclusions arrived by the trial court. The leave application,

therefore, is dismissed.

[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J. [GOV IND MATHUR], J.

Pramod