RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The petitioners have filed this III bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The accused petitioners along with other accused are facing a sessions trial in case No. 9/96 State v. Ramniwas and others pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana for offences under Sections 364, 365, 147 and 302, I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. in the case was lodged by Sugan Singh on 14-9-1995 at P. S. Khunkhuna in which it was alleged that his son Tejraj, a student of 10th class, had gone to take supplementary examination that was held on 28-8-1995 in Deedwana High School. After the examination was over, he returned from there but did not reach his house. He searched for him at various places but without any success. When he made inquiries he came to know that Tejraj alighted from the train at Chhoti Khatu Railway Station and from there the accused persons physically lifted him in a jeep and fled away. Thereafter his dead body was recovered from a well on 25-12-1995 at the instance of accused Chunaram. Since the clothes as worn by Tejraj were found on the dead body it was presumed that the person died was none other than Tejraj. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that a D.N.A. test has also been carried out and it was established that he was the son of Sugan Singh. Accused Chunaram and Ramnarain were arrested on 17-12-1995, Prabhuram on 6-1-1996 and the other accused on 1-1-1996.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though previous applications on behalf of the petitioners have been dismissed but he would like to highlight that there is absolutely no case under Section 302, IPC even prima facie made out against the accused. He submitted that all the eye-witnesses have been examined and the Court is in a position to see whether there is any prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence under Section 302, IPC. He submitted that the first eye-witness Ramchandra P.W. 1 has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all. Another eye-witness Madanlal P.W. 16 has stated that on the day of occurrence he saw Nortaram, Shrawan, Ramchandra and Prakash standing near the jeep. He further said that Chunaram, Nimbhuda and Prabhuram lifted Tejraj and put him in the jeep and fled away. Learned counsel has submitted that in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-13) he does not name any accused except Chunaram. Mohan Singh PW. 20, another eye-witness, has named Prabhuram, Prakash and Ramchandra as the persons who caught hold of Tejraj and put him in the jeep but in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-18) he has stated that he had gone to Kerala. He has also deposed that he saw Tejraj on 28-8-1995 whereas the occurrence is said to be of 26-8-1995. He has also not stated in his police statement that Praburam, Prakash and Ramchandra caught hold of Tejraj. Rewant Singh P.W. 21 has named all the 10 accused persons who caught hold of Tejraj and in Court he could not identify any of the accused persons. Similar is the statement of Prahalad Singh P. W. 22. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that from the above testimony of the eye-witnesses no offence under Section 302, IPC can be said to have been made out against the accused even prima facie. Even presuming that the statement of these witnesses are correct to the effect that the petitioners caught hold of Tejraj and put him in the jeep and then fled away, only an offence under Section 364, IPC is said to be made out. Learned counsel has cited the case of Narain Singh Chandrabhany v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri LR (Raj) 588.