STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution story in brief as narrated by the complainant Om Prakash is that on 17.5.1974 at 7.15 p.m. he has boarded bus at Bikaner for his village Udairam Sar. He got down from the bus at his village and was proceeding towards his house. Near Gogaji-ka-Than near the house of Sohan Singh all accused-respondents were present. All the accused person Sohan Singh, Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Sita Ram, Kanhaiyalal and Arjun Singh surrounded him and gave him beating. It is stated that the accused Narain Singh has inflicted injury by an axe on his head and other persons have also inflicted injuries. The prosecution filed challan against, Narain Singh and Kanhaiyalal under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 I RC. thereafter on directions of learned Magistrate cognizance was taken against three more accused persons. After recording the evidence the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused persons for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.RC. vide judgment dated 4.12.1978, on appeal all accused persons were acquitted by Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide its order dated 9.1.1984. The State has filed appeal only against Narain Singh and Kanhaiyalal. The acquittal of all the accused persons was based on the fact that the Sessions Judge has not believed the F.I.R. recorded at the time said to have been recorded. The statement of RW. 1 Rajendra, P.W. 2 Manfool and P.W. 3 Shivratan was disbelieved on the ground that there was material contradiction in the statements recorded by the police and statements made before the Court. They were also found to be chance witnesses. RW. 1 Rajendra and PW. 2 Manfool were found to be chance witnesses and their presence at the spot at the time of incidence was not proved by the prosecution. It was also found by the Court that there was a trial against Om Prakash Complainant and Narain Singh and Kanhaiyalal were witnesses in that trial where he was convicted. Thus the learned Sessions Judge has said the chance of false implication of the complainant of Narain Singh and Kanhaiyalal cannot be ruled out. Learned Sessions Judge considering the nature of injuries found on the body of Om Prakash and has held that the probability that he has received injury by falling down from the vehicle cannot be ruled out. The learned Sessions Judge has also pointed out that Om Prakash's statement was recorded after ten days after the incident by the police. PW. 5 Om Prakash has appeared before the Court and stated that the police has never recorded his statement. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in detail. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the learned Sessions Judge reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused non-applicants Narain Singh and Kanhaiyalal. The learned counsel for the State could not point out any glaring infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and could not show to me the mis-appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) Having considered all the aspects I am of view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The appeal is dismissed. State appeal rejected.