Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishnu Saini vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 1 December, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 333/2018
Vishnu Saini S/o Phoolchand Saini, B/c Mali, R/o Shyam Colony,
Jaipur Bikaner By Pass, Bajaj Gram, Sanwli Sikar, Police Station,
Sadar Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Manish Kumar Swami S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar
Swami, B/c Swami, R/o Kishan Colony, Nawalgarh Road,
Sikar Raj. At Present Tenant C/o Amar Singh Rajput
Village Malkeda Via Piprali, Sikar, Police Station Udyog
Nagar, District Sikar Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision No. 496/2018 Sheesh Ram S/o Shri Murarilal Bhavariya, R/o Ramnagar Govindpura, Sikar, Raj.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Manish Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar B/c Swami, R/o Kishan Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Raj., Present Address C/o Sh. Amar Singh Rajput, Village Malkeda, Tehsil Piprali, District Sikar, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Jain for
Mr. Anood Dhand
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
01/12/2018
(2 of 4) [CRLR-333/2018]
1. Petitioners have preferred these revision petitions aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar, whereby Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 306, 384 & 386 of IPC.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that police submitted a negative final report. From the statement of the witnesses, it was revealed that petitioners never demanded any money from the parents of complainant. They have rather stated that petitioners never visited the rented premises of the deceased. It is also contended that the suicide note which was running in ten pages was sent to FSL alongwith sixty eight admitted hand writing documents of the deceased. FSL has given a report that nothing can be ascertained from the documents submitted and has asked the police to submit further admitted documents of the deceased.
3. It is argued that though name of petitioners are appearing in the suicide note, the suicide note has also been written in stages. Name of petitioners is not appearing in the first suicide note. Their names are appearing in the second and third suicide notes.
4. It is contended that the Court below while taking cognizance, has observed that the name of petitioners is appearing in the suicide note and witnesses have also deposed that the petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is contended that none of the witnesses have stated with regard to petitioners' instigating the deceased, rather they have stated name of five other persons. Complainant himself, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased and neighbours have all stated that they have not seen the petitioners coming to the rented premises of the deceased.
(3 of 4) [CRLR-333/2018]
5. It is contended that from the entire material which is on record, there was not in iota of evidence, so as to take cognizance against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the revision petitions. His contention is that petitioners were named in the suicide note, hence Court below was justified in taking cognizance. It is also argued that at the time of taking cognizance, Court is not required to conduct roving inquiry and, if from the material prima facie same case is made out, Court is competent to take cognizance.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the revision petitions.
8. I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the statement of the complainant recorded on two occasions. In his statement he has specifically mentioned that the petitioners were his friends and they used to consume liquor together. He has stated that there is no amount outstanding towards the petitioners and petitioners never demanded any money from him and that his father has mentioned their names because he had seen the petitioners with his son. None of the witnesses have stated that petitioners have ever instigated the deceased or visited the rented premises where the deceased was residing.
9. Fact that ten pages were recovered from the pocket of the deceased and were sent to FSL along with sixty eight pages in the admitted hand writing of the deceased and FSL come to the conclusion that nothing can be ascertained Court can presume that the documents which were recovered were not in the hand writing of the deceased as there is no specific finding of the FSL that the documents were in the hand writing of the deceased.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-333/2018]
10. Police in this case after due investigation have submitted a negative final report. There was no witness in the entire charge- sheet who had stated that the petitioners ever instigated the deceased. Complainant, her sister and brother-in-law have not levelled any allegations against the petitioners. Suicide note is not established to be in the hand writing of the deceased, hence there is no justification for the Court below to take cognizance against the petitioners. Court below has taken cognizance, holding that witnesses have deposed against the petitioners, which is factually incorrect.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence the revision petitions deserve to be and are accordingly, allowed.
12. Orders passed by the Court below qua the petitioners is quashed. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
13. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Arti/8-9 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)