S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT S.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.78/2008 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & ors. under Section 378(iii), Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) Parbatsar in Cr.Case No.04/07(57/06). Date of Judgment: July 03, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA,J. Mr. V.R. Mehta, P.P. for the State. BY THE COURT: The State has preferred leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar in Sessions Case S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 2 No.4/2007 (57/07) by which the learned trial court has acquitted respondent Moti Ram and Prema Ram from the charges under Sections 307, 325 and 323, IPC. As per the prosecution case, one Bholu Ram gave a written report Ex.P.11 in the Police Station, Kuchaman City on 21.10.2006 at about 6 p.m. stating therein that the complainant Bholu Ram's son Heera Lal's wife Nandudi along with one Santudi daughter of Nanda Ram and Pinkudi daughter of Hanman residents of Hariyajun went to take water from the public tap where one pickup vehicle of white colour, which was being driven by Moti Ram and in which Pema Ram was sitting along with one more person, came and with intention to kill Nandudi, Santudi and Pinkudi, driven the vehicle over them. At that time Chandudi, Pusaki, Lakha Ram, Jaisa Ram and Raju Ram were also present there. The villagers also heard 'rola' and went towards the vehicle but the accused ran towards the village Mangalana. In the FIR, vehicle number was given as HR 35 C 3462. The complainant came to know from S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 3 the son of Heera Ram that accused attacked upon these ladies because of enmity with Heera Ram as about 15 days ago, at chauraha of Narayanpura station, the accused Prema Ram and Moti Ram were beating one person and Heera Ram saved that person from Prema Ram and Moti Ram, upon which accused threatened Heera Ram by saying that you are teaching us, therefore, be ready for consequences. As per Heera Ram, because of that enmity, the accused in planned way, tried to run the vehicle over these ladies. The villagers tried to catch hold the accused but the accused ran away. The victims Nandudi, Santudi and Pinkudi were taken to the hospital at Ajmer looking to their grievous injuries. On the basis of above information, FIR No.246/06 was registered in the Police Station and the matter was investigated and ultimately, challan was filed against the accused Moti Ram under Sections 307, 325 and 323, IPC, whereas against Prema Ram, challan was filed under Sections 307/34, 325 and 323, IPC and charges under the same sections were framed by the trial S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 4 court which were denied by the accused and they sought trial. The prosecution produced as many as 21 witnesses as well as documentary evidence and the statements of accused were recorded. The trial court found the entire prosecution story unbelievable as well as improbable and acquitted the accused, hence this appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal. The prosecution examined witnesses,namely, injured PW-20 Nandu Devi, PW-5 Chandudi, PW-4 Raju Ram, PW-8 Smt. Pusi Devi, PW-9 Lakha Ram, PW-10 Jaisa Ram, PW-11 Heera Ram, PW-18 Santosh, who stated that moti Ram was driving the vehicle by which the injuries were caused to above three ladies and Prema Ram was with him in the vehicle. The motive disclosed for causing the injuries by Moti Ram and Prema Ram was only that about 15 days ago, there was some quarrel between the accused and Heera Ram and that quarrel was because of the reason that Heera Ram saved one person S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 5 from beating of the accused. The prosecution also produced witness PW-17 Govind Lal, who stated that every second or third day, Moti Ram and Prema Ram used to buy ghutka and cigarette from his shop on credit basis and they never used to repay the due amount. He admitted that he has not made any entry of dues of the accused persons any where in his book nor he reported the matter to the police at any time. Therefore, it appears that that was an usual event of taking ghutka and cigarette from the shop of Govind Lal by the accused on credit basis which the accused never repaid to Govind Lal as per the statement of Govind Lal himself. In that situation, the incident of beating by accused to Govind Ram on a particular day and Heera Ram's intervention is not supported by any other reliable evidence. Be it as it may be, merely because of this reason, the accused will try to kill three ladies, cannot be believed and particularly when it is admitted case of PW-11 Heera Ram himself that after the alleged incident of intervention of Heera Ram in beating of S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 6 Govind Ram by the accused, he himself came across the accused twice during period of 15 days only but the accused did not even talk with him, much less to give any threat to him or beating. Admittedly, the accused has no grudge against these three ladies. Not only this, as per witness Heera Ram, the accused at that time told him that since he (Heera Ram) is claiming that he is strong equal to accused then he (Heera Ram) will see the consequence. In this situation attack by running a vehicle over ladies when they were taking water from public tap cannot be an act as threatened by the accused. In addition to above, the prosecution witnesses very specifically stated that the accused came running the vehicle very slow and they hit the girls and went towards the village Magalana. The presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence appears to be quite doubtful and the trial court, therefore, rightly reached to the conclusion that the statements of the witnesses cannot be relied upon. S.B.Criminal Leave to appeal No.78/2008 and S.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/08 The State of Raj. vs. Moti Ram & anr. 7 After going through the statements of the above witnesses and the injured, we are of the view that true story has not been disclosed by the complainant and the three ladies. The presence of the eye-witnesses is also very doubtful. The conduct of three ladies also casts serious doubt over their statements because if the vehicle was coming in slow speed and there were so many persons present at the place of occurrence, then by slow moving vehicle, they could not have suffered injuries for which medical evidence has been produced and there is possibility that accident must have happened some where else and the accused persons may not have present at the place of occurrence. In view of the above reason, we do not find any just reason to grant leave to appeal. Hence the leave to appeal is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. ( CHAND MAL TOTLA) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt