Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manju Bai vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 11 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 243/2012 S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 730/2012 Manju Bai Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 11th April, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE Mr. Amir Aziz, for the petitioner.
Mr. Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan.
This revision petition has been filed by the informant challenging the order dated 22nd February, 2012, passed by the learned trial court, whereby he has dismissed her application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
2. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 8th November, 2011 mentioning therein that Dev lal, Dwarka lal, Smt. Kishkindha, Smt. Jagannathi Bai and Raghuveer has been named in the First Information Report (153/2009), but even then the police had not filed challan against them. Further it is submitted that as per the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, all the aforesaid five persons have been specifically named therein and as such cognizance for the offence inter alia Sections 302, 307, 325 and 323 IPC should be taken and they may be summoned for the trial.
3. On behalf of the complainant side, it was argued before the learned court below that during the course of investigation, on the information of Dev lal and Dwarka lal, the weapon of offence was recovered, but the Investigation Officer by proceeding in an erroneous manner filed the report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. in respect of the said two persons. It was also argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hindoli, in an illegal manner accepted the said report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. filed with regard to Dev lal and Dwarka lal.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of trial. Upon the strength of the said statement, the counsel has submitted that cognizance ought to have been taken against the aforesaid five persons and the learned trial court has erred in rejecting his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. On careful perusal of the material on record, particularly the order passed by the learned trial court on 20th February, 2012, it was revealed that in the Parchabayan (Ex.P/1) recorded at the first point of time, no mention has been made with regard to the participation of Dwarka lal, Raghuveer, Smt. Kishkindha and Smt. Jagannathi Bai. Even amongst the four injured persons, who belongs to one family, namely Ramjanki, Ramnarayan, Manju Bai and Dev lal, who have alleged that the injury was caused by Gandasi on his head. So far as independent eye witnesses namely Durgalal (PW-1), Shraddha lal (PW-2) are concerned, they do not specifically mention about having seen the Marpit to the injured persons but have stated that they had seen the assailants going away from place of incident. Similarly, the witness Smt. Durga Bai, Smt. Gaura Bai, Smt. Bajrangi Bai and Jagdish who are also independent witnesses do not specifically level any allegation against the five persons in respect of the participation in the incident. The prosecution witness Jagdish (PW-11), on the contrary, specifically denies about their involvement.
6. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, particularly of the aforesaid independent persons, the learned trial court had come to the following conclusion:-
"???? 319 ??.???.??. ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??, ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???, ??????? ??? ???? ???, ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????????, ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??
7. Therefore, it is revealed from the evidence on record starting from First Information Report; Parchabayan; the statement of the injured witnesses and independent witnesses recorded during the course of trial, that the evidence on record is not of such nature that the aforesaid five persons against whom, the prayer for cognizance has been made by the complainant are likely to be convicted in the instant case, if they are implicated as accused. It is not worthy that as per the case of the complainant these five persons were named in the First Information Report and the police has erred in filing the negative report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. against all of them. But, still for the reasons best known to her, no objection or application was raised before the Magistrate concerned at the time of filing of challan requesting to take cognizance and also to proceed against them.
8. For the aforesaid reasons and on perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
10. Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.
(RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J.
Mak/-163 All Corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant