BADLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Badlu is aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagar, District Bharatpur whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons. The petitioner is equally aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 27.2.2012 and has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.7.1997, in the morning, the petitioner, Badlu, discovered the dead body of one Veer Singh, the son of complainant-respondent No.2 Ram Singh, lying in his field. The petitioner immediately informed the SHO, Police Station, Nagar. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were carried out. During these proceedings, it was discovered that there were no external injury marks on the body of the deceased. However, the Viscera was preserved by the Doctors while carrying out the post-mortem. The witnesses did not suspect the hand of any person in the death of Veer Singh. However, about ten days later, on 3.8.1997, the complainant lodged a written report at Police Station Nagar. On the basis of said written report, a FIR, namely FIR No.184/97 was chalked out for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report. Consequently, the complainant submitted a protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. By order dated 27.2.2012, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforementioned offences. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 20.6.2012, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, that while disagreeing with the negative Final Report, the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for his disagreement. Secondly, that in the statements recorded during the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the complainant and his witnesses were categorical that they do not suspect the hand of the petitioner, or of anyone else in causing death of Veer Singh. These statements have been totally ignored by the learned Magistrate. In fact, there is no incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged offence. Thirdly, that the only evidence is of last seen. However, the said evidence is a weak sort of evidence and conviction cannot be based upon it. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner. Lastly, that the learned Judge has passed a mechanical order while dismissing the revision petition. Hence, both the orders deserve to be interfered with.