CHANDRABHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an unfortunate incident, in which six persons lost their lives, 38 persons were nabbed out of which 36 were acquitted and two were convicted. The convicted accused preferred appeal against the finding of conviction, whereas brother of one of the deceased filed revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. Serious question that requires our consideration in the matters is - Should the law be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope?

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts which led to filing of instant appeal and revision are as follows: On May 20, 2000 at 10.45 PM Babulal Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Hudiya Kala along with 8-10 persons visited Police Station Mandhan and lodged an oral report Ex.P-130) and stated that at the house of Gopi Ram Yadav dead body of Gopi Ram and 3-4 other persons of his family are lying. It was further stated that certain persons who were in 2-3 jeeps and who were unknown persons had killed these persons. On this report the Onkar Mal, SHO PW.31) proceeded for village Hudiya Kala along with informant and inspected the house of Gopi Ram and found that dead body of Sri Ram Aheer and his wife Shanti were lying in the chowk. Dead body of Gopi Ram and of one unknown person was lying about 1/2 KM. away from the house in the field, towards southern side on the corner of road of Kathuwas found dead body of Ram Bhagat and Savita. As per the material collected during investigation the police made enquiry" from Kumari Sanoj (PW. 1), daughter of Savita. who was 10 years of age at the time of incident. Parcha Bayan of Kumari Sanoj was recorded which has been marked as Ext.P-1 and on the basis of which a regular FIR was registered. Sanoj stated in the Parcha Bayan that she and her family members were residing in the house of Gopi Ram for the last 3-4 months. A day before in the evening while her family members were sitting in the chowk of the plot, certain persons came in tractor and on foot and entered their house, they were duly armed with lathi, iron rod. bricks, stones etc, and started beating to her family members, They killed certain persons of the family. She also alleged that amongst the villagers there were Sheriya. Krishniya, Lashiya, Budhram, Jagdish son of Badami. one old man, certain other persons to whom she did not know by name but could identify' by face. Various other allegations were also levelled. On the basis of Parcha bayan. Onkar Mal (PVV.31) sent Ramotar Constable to the Police Station Mandhan for registering a report where FIR No.83/2000 was registered for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 379 and 120B, IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against as many as 38 accused persons. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charges under sections 148, 120B, 452, 302, 302/149, 118 and 379 IPC were framed against the accused persons. who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had examined as many as 34 witnesses and got exhibited as many as 174 documents. The statements of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 CrPC in which they denied their complicity.

(3.) The learned trial court heard the arguments and held that during trial the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the incident and held that in this case the site plan of recovery was not prepared by the police, all material witnesses have been declared hostile and even the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story, and held that there is no evidence on record which may connect the accused with crime, convicted and sentenced accused Chandrabhan and Bahadur Singh but acquitted all other -36 co-accused persons.