D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007
in
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/2007.
The State or Raj. vs. Raju
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT
JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
The State of Raj. vs. Raju
D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/07
under Section 378(iii) and (i),
Cr.P.C.against the judgment dated
29.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge,(Fast Track) No.2, Bali in
Sessions Case No.8/2007.
Date of Judgment: July 29, 2008.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA,J.
Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P. for the State.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh for the respondents.
BY THE COURT :
The State has submitted this petition for leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 29.6.2007 passed in
Sessions Case NO.8/2007 passed by the learned
Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track) NO.2, Pali, by which for
charges under Section 302 and 364, one of the accusded
Tej Pal has been convicted but respondent Raju has
been acquitted by the trial court.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.9.2006, the
D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007
in
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.—-/2007.
The State or Raj. vs. Raju
2
complainant Prakash submitted a typed information in
the Police Station, Marwar Junction stating therein that
his elder sister Smt. Pista aged 52 years was residing
permanently at Bangalore. About a month ago, his
sister came to live with complainant’s mother Smt.
Ghewari Devi. Tej Pal is neighbour of the complainant
and he took some loan from complainant’s sister. Tej Pal
told Smt. Pista that for repayment of loan, he will have
to go to Bank at Marwar Junction. Smt. Pista, therefore,
went with accused Tej Pal for going to Marwar Junction
by train. However, Smt. Pista did not come back to the
house, therefore, on 19.9.2006, a report about missing
of Smt. Pista was lodged.The complainant subsequently,
came to know that in fact Tej Pal and his colleagues
Ratan and Raju killed Smt. Pista and took away her
ornaments which have been disclosed by the
complainant in the report. On these allegations, FIR
No.159 dated 19.9.2006 was registered as at that time
the complainant’s apprehension was that Smt. Pista
might have been killed and there was no positive
information to the complainant that Smt. Pista has
D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007
in
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.—-/2007.
The State or Raj. vs. Raju
3
already been killed. After investigation, challan was
submitted against the two accused Tej Pal and Raju for
offences under Section 664, 302 and 302/34, IPC. The
prosecution produced as many as 20 witnesses. The trial
court after considering the evidence and the documents
placed on record, acquitted respondent Raju for the
charges referred above. Hence this appeal has been
preferred by the State.
It appears from the judgment of the trial court
that the trial court, after considering the entire
evidence and particularly the alleged recovery of one
gold ring, held that there is no evidence of seeing
deceased Raju at any point of time nor the recovery of
the gold ring has been proved by trustworthy evidence.
The other witnesses were neither knowing respondent
Raju nor they identified accused in any manner. The
trial court also reached to the conclusion that
respondent Raju was very much available in the town of
Bhinmal from 4.9.2006 to 17.9.2006 and this fact has
been proved from the prosecution witnesses PW-19
Bhanwar Lal and PW-20 Bhikh Singh.
D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007
in
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.—-/2007.
The State or Raj. vs. Raju
4
We perused the statements of the witnesses. It
appears from the statements of PW-9 Ghewari Devi,
PW-10 Shanti Lal, PW08 Jayanti Lal, PW-12 Smt. Pista
w/o Tara Chand and PW-11 Prakash that there is no
direct evidence against respondent Raju for commission
of offence, individually or with accused Tej Pal.
After going through all the reasons given by the
trial court and after considering all the evidence
available on record, we are of the view that the trial
court has not committed any error of fact or law in
acquitting respondent Raju.
There is no merit in the petition for leave to
appeal. Hence the petition for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
( C. M. TOTLA) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J.
mlt