MANI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under proviso to Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by complainant Mani Lal, father of the deceased Vijay, against the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 27/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Raju & anr.), whereby the accused-respondents Raju and Rekha were acquitted of the offences under Ss. 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and accused-respondent Raju from offence under Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this case is based on the following circumstantial evidence :-

(3.) As per first information report lodged by the father of the deceased, appellant herein on 18/12/2017, the deceased left the house on 2/12/2017 and did not return back. The information regarding lying of a dead body was received through telephone on 18/12/2017, upon which, Rakhi and Raveena, daughters of the complainant, went at the site and identified the dead body to be of their brother. Thus, the FIR was lodged only after recovery of the dead body of the deceased Vijay on 18/12/2017 and before that, no missing report was made to the police by anybody. In the FIR, it is not mentioned that the complainant was informed by his daughters regarding the fact that deceased left the house with any particular person. Thus, it is clear that before recovery of the dead body of deceased Vijay, P.W. 8 Rakhi and P.W. 12 Raveena did not apprise this material fact to their father that Vijay had gone with Rekha and her husband. In the above circumstances, the disclosure made by Rakhi and Raveena for the first time during their sworn testimony before the trial court to the effect that on 7/12/2017, Rekha came to their house and on her call, deceased went with her, is not trustworthy. In the police statement of Rakhi (Ex.D/2) also, this fact has not been narrated.