DB CRL. LEAVE TO APPEAL No.433/08 State of Raj. Vs. Rupapuri & Ors. DB CRLR No.1102/08 Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.433/2008 State of Rajasthan Vs. Rupapuri and others & D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1102/2008 Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date :: 3.8.2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Goyal Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor for State. Mr. D.P. Pujari, for complainant-petitioner Jagdish. ........ The State of Rajasthan has filed leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10/7/2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No.19/2006 whereby accused respondent Rupapuri has been acquitted from the offence under sections 302 & 201 IPC and rest of the accused have been acquitted from the offence under section 201 IPC. The complainant Jagdish has also filed a criminal revision petition against the said judgment of acquittal. Since these two matters arise out of one and the same judgment passed by the court below, therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR came to be lodged on 2/9/2005 on the written report of PW1 Jagdish DB CRL. LEAVE TO APPEAL No.433/08 State of Raj. Vs. Rupapuri & Ors. DB CRLR No.1102/08 Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2) to the effect that his uncle Kesharpuri came to their house on 18/8/2005 and took his father Bhurapuri along with him to his house for settling the dispute amongst his sons regarding land and thereafter about one hour all of a sudden a noise of hue and cry was heard and when his brother Heerapuri and other family members reached at the well, they saw that Rupapuri was sitting in the well comfortably, he was taken out from the well, at this time Heerapuri saw his father Bhurapuri lying down in between the coats at a distance of about 50 ft. from the well and on asking, his uncle said that due to head-ache Bhurapuri fell down, thereafter both Rupapuri and Bhurapuri were taken to the hospital where doctors declared Bhurapuri dead, thereafter Bhurapuri was buried in the grave yard treating his as natural death. Lateron it came to their notice that Bhurapuri has been murdered by Kesharpuri, Khyalipuri, Banshipuri, Rukma Devi, Sita Devi and Geeta Devi in a conspiracy. 3. After investigation police filed the charge- sheet. The trial court framed the charges for the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC against accused respondent Rupapuri and remaining accused respondents were charged for the offence under section 201 IPC. The trial court recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses. The statements of accused respondents under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded and after DB CRL. LEAVE TO APPEAL No.433/08 State of Raj. Vs. Rupapuri & Ors. DB CRLR No.1102/08 Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (3) hearing the parties acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges. Hence, leave to appeal has been filed by the State and criminal revision by the complainant Jagdish. 4. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for complainant-petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on the record. 5. From the impugned judgment and the material available on the record, it transpires that the report has been lodged after 15 days i.e. on 2/9/2005 for the incident of 18/8/2005 and it has been found by the trial court that prosecution utterly failed to explain this inordinate delay specially in the circumstances where the prosecution witnesses admitted in their evidence that on the next day of the incident they came to know that Bhurapuri was murdered and it was not a natural death. The prosecution mainly relied upon hear say evidence as well as extra judicial confession but it was found that the witnesses were not trustworthy and there were material discrepancies and inherent contradictions in their statements. According to the complainant Jagdish, key suspect person is Khyalipuri who committed the murder of his father Bhurapuri but Khyalipuri has not been made an accused in this matter. The allegations of inflicting injuries by sharp weapon Dantali have also been levelled by some of the witnesses but according to the doctor, the deceased did not DB CRL. LEAVE TO APPEAL No.433/08 State of Raj. Vs. Rupapuri & Ors. DB CRLR No.1102/08 Jagdish Puri Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (4) sustain any incised wound. The trial court after considering all the evidence of the prosecution very minutely, acquitted the accused respondents, in which we do not find any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, it is not a fit case where revision petition may be admitted for hearing or leave to appeal should be granted. 6. Consequently, the leave to appeal filed by the State is declined and the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner is dismissed. (J.R. Goyal),J. (Dalip Singh),J. VS Shekhawat Jr.P.A. D4-5