STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GOKAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 31st August, 1973 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Trial No. 15/73. In the aforesaid sessions trial, respondent Gokal Chand was prosecuted on a charge under section 392 read with section 397 I.P.C. The Assistant Sessions Judge by his judgment aforesaid, acquitted the respondent of the said charge on the view that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond doubt.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that Sahukar (P.W. 1) was employed at the railway station, Bharatpur. On 28th January, 1973 at about 9 P.M. Sahukar was returning from Bharatpur to his village, Ludhwara, on his cycle. When he reached the culvert of Jaghina Nala on the road which goes from Bharatpur to Mathura, two persons, came on a cycle from the opposite direction and even though he tried to avoid them, they dashed their cycle against his cycle and as a result, he fell down. One of those persons took out a knife and placed it on the neck of Sahukar and the other person took out a pistol and put it against the chest of Sahukar and asked Sahukar to give the money he had with him. Those persons snatched the Titus wrist watch from the hand of Sahukar and also removed a purse containing Rs. 140/ - from the pocket of his coat. Thereafter, those miscreants proceeded towards Bharatpur on their cycle. Sahukar after getting up, kept the cycle near a tree and followed the miscreants On the way, he met Jal Singh (P.W. 2), Shyama (P.W. 3) and others who were returning from Bharatpur and he narrated the incident to them. They pursued the miscreants and when they reached near the brick kiln of Umashanker, they were able to catch the respondent Gokal Chand. The other person could not be caught and he made good his escape after firing the fire arm. Some other persons including Mewa (P.W. 4) and Sapatar (P.W. 5) also reached there. They caught hold of the respondent and took him to village Ludhwara and kept him there for the night. On the next morning, i.e., 29th January. 1973, Sahukar went and lodged a report (Ex. P -1) at P.S. Kotwali at 8.30 A.M. and, while doing so, also produced the respondent at the police station. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under section 392/307 I.P.C. was registered and the respondent was arrested vide memo of arrest (Ex. P -4). At the time of arrest, the search of the person of the respondent was made but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter the site plan (Ex. P -2) of the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place and the site plan (Ex. P.3) of the place where the respondent was caught, were prepared. The other companion of the respondent was Surendra Pal Mishra. He remained absconding and could not be traced. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the respondent in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur, who committed the respondent for trial to the Court of Sessions. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and he was tried 'by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bharatpur.

(3.) THE Assistant Sessions Judge held that there was delay of more than 11 hours in lodging the report and that no satisfactory explanation had been offered by the prosecution for the said delay and that the aforesaid delay raises suspicion about the correctness of the prosecution story. The Assistant Sessions Judge further held that in so far as the main occurrence of robbery is concerned, there was only the evidence of the complainant, Sahukar, and that at the time when the incident took place there was darkness and it was not possible for the complainant to have clearly seen the face of the accused and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was the person, who had taken part in the robbery. The Assistant Sessions Judge was further of the view that in the earliest version of the incident, as disclosed in the F.I.R., no specific overt act was assigned to the respondent and that all the prosecution witnesses have improved upon their earlier version in their statements before the trial court so as to implicate the respondent. The Assistant Sessions Judge was also of the view that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and that the prosecution has not produced other independent persons, who were also present at the spot. In view of the findings aforesaid, the Assistant Sessions Judge held that it had not been proved beyond doubt that the person who was caught hold of, was the same person who had robbed the complainant and the Assistant Sessions Judge, therefore, acquitted the respondent. Hence, this appeal.