Unknown vs On Examination Of Statement Of … on 31 May, 2011

                                  1

       D.B. CRL. LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.03531/2010
          (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukesh & Ors.)

DATE OF ORDER :       31.5.2011


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN


Mr. KR Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor.
                                ...


      This application seeking leave to appeal to challenge the

judgment dated 8.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Women Atrocity) Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case

No.52/2006 is barred by limitation from 56 days.



      An application as per provisions of Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is preferred seeking condonation of delay in filing

leave petition. As per the averments contained in application,

certified copy of the judgment impugned was received by the

Public Prosecutor on 18.1.2010. On 8.2.2010 entire record of the

case alongwith opinion of Public Prosecutor was remitted to the

Collector, Bhilwara. The Collector, Bhilwara after considering the

record made a recommendation to appeal the judgment. After

then, that was forwarded to the Department of Law for seeking

necessary approval. After receiving the approval, the record of

the case was kept in custody of a clerk, who was suffering from

Cancer and ultimately, died thereof. Ultimately, a sanction letter

was issued on 3.5.2010 and that was received in the office of

Government Advocate on 5.6.2010. The leave application then

was filed on 10.6.2010.
                                  2



      It is stated that whatever delay caused, that is cause of

administrative reasons and that requires condonation.



      Before     considering the application we also examined the

record of the case. On merits, it is submitted by learned Public

Prosecutor that the court below erred while not appreciating the

definite statements given by PW-6 Smt. Sunita who in detailed

narrated all the circumstances in which deceased was poisoned.

It is also submitted that as per Forensic Science Laboratory

Report trace of insecticides were found positive in visceras.



      On examination of statement of PW-6 Smt. Sunita, we are

of the opinion that the statements given suffers from serious

doubts and on basis of such evidence, conviction cannot be

procured. So far as report of Forensic Science Laboratory is

concerned, it may at the most sufficient to hold homicidal death

of Smt. Kaushalya, however, it is not a conclusive evidence to

prove the charge against the respondents. It is also relevant to

note that in the First Information Report (Ex.D/3) lodged by

father of deceased, no apprehension regarding any ill-happening

was disclosed.



      In such circumstance, we do not find any wrong with the

conclusion arrived by the trial court that reasonable doubt exists

in believing the prosecution story.
                                      3

           Looking to this position and also for the reason that the

      delay has not been satisfied, we are not inclined to grant the

      application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly,

      the application is dismissed. In the result, the leave to appeal

      too stands dismissed.



      (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN ), J.             (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

Rm/