PANCHA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-complainant has preferred this victim's appeal under Sec. 372 Cr.P.C. for assailing the judgment dtd. 17/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Nagaur in Sessions Case No.250/2015 whereby, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges punishable for the offences under Ss. 302, 201 and 120-B of the . These charges were framed against the respondents in regards to the homicidal death of one Ganpatram.

(2.) We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the impugned judgment of acquittal and have re-appreciated the evidence available on record.

(3.) The case of the prosecution was based purely on circumstantial evidence. The FIR (Ex.P/7) came to be lodged by Pancharam (PW-4) alleging inter alia that his son Ganpatram had gone to his maternal grand parent's village Dharnawas on 24/10/2014. At around 6:00 pm, he was with his maternal uncle Mohanram and thereafter at the same time (at 6:00 pm) he left the village and his phone was responding as switched off. One Pappuram (PW-9) called the informant and asked him as to whether, Ganpatram had returned home to which, Pancharam replied in negative. About 4 o' clock in the morning, the officers of Police Station Khimasar came to the house of informant and told him that Ganpatram's dead body was lying at a distance of about 150 feet from the Lala was crossroads, on the Jodhpur-Nagaur road and that probably he had died because of an accident. The informant suspected that the theory of accident was incorrect and that his son had been killed somewhere else and his dead body had been thrown on the road by unknown persons. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.171/2014 came to be registered at the Police Station Khimasar and challan was filed against the respondents Kailash Nath, Sohan Nath, Vijay Singh and Bajrang Singh for the above offences. After committal, charges were framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 26witnesses were examined and 42 documents were exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case. When questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be innocent but did not lead any evidence in defence. While appreciating the evidence, the trial court found that two circumstances were portrayed by the prosecution for bringing home the charges: