MAAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeals have been filed under Sec. 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2020, registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu, for the offences under Ss. 302, 201/34 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dtd. 30/6/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu whereby, the appeal preferred under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected. This is the second appeal on behalf the appellant- Maan Singh @ Maniya S/o Shri Chhotu Ram. The Ist appeal was dismissed as not pressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 19/7/2022.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence worth the name, on record of the case to connect the appellants with the alleged crime of murder of the complainant's son namely 'Rampratap'. Learned counsel submitted that an FIR No.0187/2020 was lodged on the basis of a written report filed by the complainant on 17/7/2020, alleging therein that on 16/7/2020 in the evening at about 07:00 PM, co-accused Ajay Singh came to his house and at around 09:30 PM took away his son i.e. Rampratap with him; thereafter, Rampratap did not return home. On the next day, the complainant reached the house of Ajay Singh and on being asked, they refused to divulge any information regarding the whereabouts of Ajay Singh and Rampratap. Subsequently, a search was made and the dead body of the deceased Rampratap was found in a well (kund).

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that in order to establish the commission of offence on the basis of the last seen theory, the statements of one Satpal were got recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C, about four days after the incident, wherein, he stated that on 16/7/2020, he had seen the deceased Rampratap in the company of the present appellants and co-accused Ajay Singh who were arguing with each other at the top of their voices. Learned counsel also contended that there was no motive for the appellants to murder the deceased. In order to support this argument, drawing attention of the Court towards the postmortem report of the deceased, learned counsel submitted that the Medical Board has not given any specific findings that the deceased was strangulated or suffocated and has rather found that no ligature mark or signs of throttling were found on his neck.