STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJU ALIAS RAMJI KARSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What a travesty of majesty of justice . Will be the only startling feeling, one who not only entertains or hears, this appeal, but even an ordinary person, who reads the papers. The gruesome and ghastly murder of a child baby Ratu aged about 3 to 4 years became the victim of kidnaping, rape and finally murdered by strangulation whose dead body was traced from bushes in the railway- yard at Gandhidham. The respondent-accused came to be acquitted and after having, dispassionately, and elaborately examined the testimonial collections and the documentary evidence, we have also to painfully but dutifully raise our hands in helplessness from converting acquittal into conviction, keeping in mind the statutory imperatives mandated by the Criminal Jurisprudence.

(2.) By filing this acquittal appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1989, the appellant-State has vociferously and seriously attempted to save the situation which could have been done, by the same prosecuting agency and the investigating authority, if it had remained little less indifferent in strategy during the course of the trial. Of course. verdict to be pronounced is a job of the Court but the investigation and prosecuting agency is obliged and as such is bound to thoroughly investigate so as to detect the crime and the criminal and thereafter equally strong obligation on the part of it to place before the Court and prove to the satisfaction of the Court, which unfortunately in the present case, has not been done. Which ought to have been done has not been done by the prosecution. Which is done was not, to an extent, necessary to be done. Merely, placing on record some documents without taking care to prove them and that too in a case of capital charge of murder, rape. kidnaping and that too of a small baby of tender age between 3 to 4 years, is unhappy situation and not at all sufficient. An impression which we have gathered in the course of hearing of this appeal is not only shocking but startling and we cannot resist the temptation of placing the same on record not only for our satisfaction but also for some guidance, care and caution in future in such cases by the authorities involved, if at all they are so-minded to think on it. Apart from dynamics of Criminal Justice delivery system, larger interest of justice assumes paramount and vital role to which again, we are sorry to say in this matter was not done by all concerned, except the defence Counsel. The authorities have remained oblivious, unmindful, indifferent and apathetic. The trial of heinous crime when gets culminated into acquittal on account of want of required procedural care by the prosecuting agency and to an extent, the concerned Court, it is really not a matter of unbearable pain but it is also a heart-stealing, with due respect to one and all concerned.

(3.) The short history may be traced, which has led the State to file this acquittal appeal. The respondent is the original accused who came to be charged for having committed offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376, 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge. Kutch at Bhuj, on 5-5-1990. The charge came to be framed upon the facts alleged by the prosecution which need narration at this juncture. The prosecution story goes that in between the period from 15-6-1989 at about 6-30 p.m. to 18-6-1989 at 4-30 p.m. the respondent-accused committed an act of murder by throttling the deceased Baby Ratu in bushes near the railway-yard of Gandhidham railway station, after kidnaping her and thereafter raping her. The incident commenced, on 29-5-1989, when deceased Ratu, daughter of Raju alias Ranchhod was taken away from his legal guardianship by alluring her and thereafter committed rape on her between 15-6- 1989 and 18-6-1989 and to silence the victim, committed her murder by throttling and again to screen the offence, threw the dead body in bushes so as to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence.