Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Kapura Ram & Ors on 8 December, 2017
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 759 / 2015
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kapura Ram son of Ramaji
2. Smt. Sukhi wife of Kapura Ram
3. Smt. Kakudi wife of Jeeva Ram
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. OP Rathi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 08/12/2017 The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 25.04.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Session Case No.16/2011 by which the learned Judge acquitted the accused- respondent No.1 Kapura Ram for the offences under Sections 307 & 325 IPC but convicted him for offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC and gave him benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- in total. The learned Judge also acquitted the accused- respondent Nos.2 & 3 Smt. Sukhi and Smt. Kakudi respectively for the offences under Sections 323/34 & 341/34 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2011 the complainant Manju Devi submitted a written report at Police (2 of 5) [CRLA-759/2015] Station Desuri stating therein that on 18.03.2011 there was a function of "Dund" of her uncle Kapura Ram's son. Her father did not agree to call Devaram and Gheesi Bhua in the said function. Due to this reason, uncle of the complainant became annoyed. That day in the morning her mother went for feeding the grains to pigeon. At that time Kakuri wife of Jivaram, Sukhi W/o Kapura Ram, Kapura Ram and Pema Ram caused injuries to her mother. She called his father and narrated the incident. On this, his father and grand-father went to his uncle house where the accused- persons also gave beating to them. His father also received injuries on his head. At that time the complainant and his brother intervened to rescue them. On this written report, the police registered a formal FIR No.18/2011 at Police Station Desuri, District Pali. After thorough investigation the police filed a challan against the accused-respondents Kapura Ram for offence under Sections 307, 341, 323, 325 IPC and against Sukhi and Kapudi for offences under Section 341/34 & 323/34 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri. Thereafter the case was committed before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali where the learned Judge framed the charges against the accused- respondents for the aforesaid offences. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in all and several documents were exhibited. Thereafter statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was examined on the defence side.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali by his judgment dated 25.04.2015 acquitted the (3 of 5) [CRLA-759/2015] accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 Smt. Sukhi and Smt. Kakudi respectively for the offences under Sections 323/34 & 341/34 IPC. The learned Judge also acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 Kapura Ram for the offences under Sections 307 & 325 IPC but convicted him for offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC and gave him benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- in total. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 307, 325, 323/34 & 341/34 IPC, the appellant State of Rajasthan has preferred this present appeal before this Court.
Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. O.P. Rathi, has argued that Smt. Devi wife of Moti Lal received four injuries in all and likewise Moti Lal also received four injuries in all. The learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 307, 325, 323/34 & 341/34 IPC without assigning any cogent reasons and hence, the acquittal of the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offences is illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondents has argued that Dr. Farooq Ahmed (PW-10) in his statement clearly stated that no fracture was found in the body of the injured Smt. Devi and Moti Lal. He has further mentioned that he sent the injury reports as well as x-ray reports to the Radiologist for expert opinion but the Radiologist in this case has not been examined by the prosecution. Counsel further urged that in this case the Investigating Officer has also not been examined by the prosecution to prove its case for offences under (4 of 5) [CRLA-759/2015] Sections 307, 325, 323/34 & 341/34 IPC.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also scrutinized the record of the case.
It is not in dispute that the complainant party as well as the accused party both are in near relation. So there is no motive or intention to cause serious injury to the injured persons. According to the statement of the injured witnesses, there are material contradictions and improvements which have thoroughly been discussed by the learned trial court. Ram Lal (PW-7) and Pukhraj (PW-8) are independent witnesses. They have not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile. From the perusal of the statement of Dr. Farooq Ahmed (PW-10), he examined the injured Smt. Devi w/o Moti Lal and found four injuries simple by blunt weapon. He further mentioned that injured Moti Lal received four injuries and in the injury report he mentioned that injury No.2 was found to be grievous in nature. But in the cross-examination he mentioned that in injury No.2 there was no fracture at all and he further mentioned that he sent all the injury reports as well as x- ray reports to the Radiologist for confirmation of grievous injury but in this case the Radiologist has not at all been examined by the prosecution to prove its case for the offences under Sections 307, 325, 323/34 & 341/34 IPC. Without any examination of the Radiologist, the x-ray reports as well as expert opinion has not come out on record to prove the case for offences under Sections 307, 325, 323/34 & 341/34 IPC. The learned trial court appreciated this material aspect of the matter and rightly (5 of 5) [CRLA-759/2015] acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 Kapura Ram for the offences under Sections 307 & 325 and accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 Smt. Sukhi and Smt. Kakudi for offences under Sections 323/34 & 341/34 IPC. The material discrepancies have also come on record. The Investigating Officer who investigated the case has not at all been examined by the prosecution. So the material documents were not at all exhibited to prove the case of prosecution. The learned trial court observed that these are the major contradictions on the part of the prosecution to prove its case and rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.1 Kapura Ram for the offences under Sections 307 & 325 and accused- respondent Nos.2 & 3 Smt. Sukhi and Smt. Kakudi for offences under Sections 323/34 & 341/34 IPC. No other grounds are raised by the learned Public Prosecutor or by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant State of Rajasthan is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. Ms/-85