MEHAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 12.6.2002, one Mehar Chand, present petitioner, lodged a FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar alleging that his daughter Shakuntala was married with one Mahendra Singh about 6 years back. There was a dispute between the husband and wife resulting into the proceedings taken into Court. On 11.6.2002, deceased Ramesh, son of Mehar Chand, went to the house of Mahendra Singh at about 4:30 AM to talk for settlement. It is alleged that at 6:15 AM, when the victim reached to the house of the accused, the accused persons Balveer Singh, Mahendra Singh, Surendra Singh and Jaswant Singh abused him and they refused to settle the dispute between the sister of deceased and Mahendra Singh and they even alleged that the sister of victim is of a bad character. While oral altercations were going on, Jagdish and Krishna, who were passing from there, also heard and saw the incident and when they had hardly moved 3-4 steps, then they heard the cries of the victim uttering burnt killed.

(2.) On this FIR, a case under Section 306/34 IPC was registered and after investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused Mahendra Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT), Sri Ganganagar framed charge against accused persons under Section 302 IPC and in alternate Section 302/34 IPC. The said order of the trial court dated 22.11.2002 framing charge was challenged by preferring criminal revision petition no.1067/2002 before this Court. The said revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.5.2004 and the charge framed by the trial court was quashed and set aside. Against the order of this Court dated 28.5.2004, Criminal Appeal No.1139/2006 was preferred which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.11.2006 holding that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order framing charge and the order passed in revision dated 28.5.2004 was set aside and, therefore, the trial proceeded.

(3.) In trial, the prosecution produced as much as 16 witnesses and 47 documents. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution story in total and found that even the father of the victim, who got the information of alleged burning of his son in the evening of 11.6.2002, had no reason to lodge FIR after about 20 hours and the explanation given for the said delay that the complainant was heart patient and after knowing the murder of his son took his medicine and slept for whole night, was rejected. Substantially, there was no evidence found and on the basis of circumstantial evidence and even on the basis of alleged letter by the complainant, which is alleged to be written on 10.6.2002, a day before the incident, was also not found sufficient for implicating the accused persons.