MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision under Section 397 CrPC, the accused petitioner Manohar Singh has approached this court for challenging the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) , Balotara in Sessions Case No.2/2009, whereby the learned trial Judge directed framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 302 and 458 IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief are that Shri Babu Singh, lodged a report at the Police Station Balotara on 24.05.2008 alleging inter alia that on the night intervening 23.05.2008 and 24.05.2008, he was returning home after shutting down his milk dairy. When he reached outside his brother Peer Singh's house, he saw a car parked outside. Out of curiosity, he went inside the house of Peer Singh, upon which, he saw Bhagwat Singh, Surajbhan Singh, Sawai Singh and Manohar Singh Rajput standing there. They fired gunshots on the head of Peer Singh. The complainant was threatened by the accused to go away or face the same consequences. On hearing the gunshots, the neighbours Pukhraj Singh and Mal Singh came there and on seeing them approaching, the accused persons escaped in their car. The motive behind the incident, as mentioned in the FIR, was that Prem Singh had lodged a report of molestation of his daughter against Manohar Singh and that these people had threatened to kill Peer Singh in relation to the said incident.

(3.) On basis of this report, an FIR No.301/2008 was registered at the Police Station Balotara for the offences under Sections 143, 458 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Looking at the suspicious conduct of the complainant, who did not take timely steps for either taking Peer Singh to the hospital or of reporting the matter to the police, the IGP, Range Jodhpur entrusted investigation of the case to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barmer. The Investigating Officer found the evidence of motive attributed to Manohar Singh and the evidence of the allged eye-witnesses Mal Singh and Pukhraj Singh to be credible and the accused petitioner Manohar Singh was arrested in this case on 25.05.2008. However, Manohar Singh did not admit his complicity in the crime despite thorough interrogation. The weapon of offence allegedly used in the murder could not be recovered. The call details and tower locations of the accused persons named in the FIR were collected and upon a detailed analysis thereof, the Investigating Officer concluded that presence of the accused could not be proved at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time. The Investigating Officer also concluded that the motive attributed to Manohar Singh as set out in the FIR was also conjectural and fictional because the incident of Manohar Singh molesting the girl from the Rajpurohit caste, had no relevance or connection with the murder of Peer Singh, who was neither the aggrieved person nor a witness to the said incident. The Investigating Officer also found that the complainant Babu Singh allegedly claimed to have seen the incident in the night at about 1 O'clock, but even though he was having a mobile phone with him, he never tried to inform the police of the gruesome and ghastly incident involving murder of his real brother and nor did he inform of the happening to any family member of the deceased, who were sleeping in the same house. Similar flaws were noticed in the version of Narayan Singh, son of the deceased. The statements of daughters of Peer Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer and these witnesses stated that when their mother Smt. Kamla got up in the morning and went into Peer Singh's room, she saw him lying there in a pool of blood. On this, they raised a hue and cry and whereupon, Babu Singh (the first informant) , Mal Singh and Pukhraj Singh came around. Isha Kanwar, daughter-in-law of the deceased averred in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that she got up in the morning at about 6 O'clock and started cleaning the house. Her father-in-law, deceased Peer Singh routinely used to prepare tea for himself and would consume it in the chowk. However, as he did not come out of his room on the fateful morning, her mother-in-law became suspicious and went into the room, where the deceased used to sleep. She saw Peer Singh lying there in a pool of blood and raised a hue and cry. The witness categorically stated that her husband Narayan Singh had gone to her matrimonial village Indrana on the previous evening. Smt. Kamla, wife of the deceased also stated that Narayan Singh was at his in-law's home in Village Indrana. However, she gave a different version of the actual incident alleging that she got up hearing the hue and cry of Babu Singh and saw in the moonlight that her husband was lying dead. Various persons, who lived and worked around the house of Peer Singh, upon being examined under Section 161 CrPC, categorically stated that they did not notice any kind of commotion from the house of Peer Singh on the fateful night. Narayan Singh, son of the deceased Peer Singh, also claimed to have witnessed the incident and implicated Manohar Singh, Sawai Singh and Bhagwat Singh. However, the Investigating Officer collected positive and plausible evidence to the effect that Babu Singh, the first informant, and Narayan Singh, son of the deceased, the first informant, went around doing their routine jobs as usual on the morning after the incident. Narayan Singh collected milk from various people, viz. Sang Singh, Ganga Singh, Mangla Ram, Bhura Ram, Nathu Singh etc. from the village Thapan and told them that he would be proceeding to Mananawas (village of the deceased) . On analysis of the call details of the mobile phones of Narayan Singh, the Investigating Officer found that his mobile was switched off on 205.2008 at 19.42 hrs. and was restarted on 24.05.2008 in the morning at 6.23 hrs. The Investigating Officer concluded that Narayan Singh was not present in the house on the fateful night because had he known of the incident, he would not have gone around collecting and distributing milk as usual in the morning after the incident. The Investigating Officer recorded and affirmative finding in the conclusion report that neither Babu Singh nor Narayan Singh had actually seen the incident and that Manohar Singh, who had been arrested by them, was not involved in the murder of Peer Singh