[1] DB CRIM. REVISION 124/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 124/2008 MADAN LAL Vs. DHANRAJ & ANR. Date: 01.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Sanjay Sharma with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal revision petition under Section 401 r/w Section 397 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the complainant/petitioner against the judgment dated 29.08.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 33/2007, whereby the accused- respondent No.1 Dhanraj has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 302,201 IPC. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 23.02.2007 the complainant/petitioner submitted a written report before the Police Station, Jawar stating therein that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Sampat Bai with accused Dhanraj 5-6 years ago. On 04.02.2007, the dead body of his daughter was found in the field of Radheshyam. He has been told that accused Dhanraj has killed his daughter. It is not disputed that private complaint was filed by the revision petitioner on 14.02.2007 [2] DB CRIM. REVISION 124/2008 and the FIR was lodged on 23.02.2007 i.e. after 18 days of the incident, wherein it was stated that the complainant was informed about the death of his daughter on 05.02.2007 and the cause of death was shown due to snake biting and funeral took place in the presence of the complainant. In the FIR it is nowhere mentioned by the complainant that after the incident on 05.02.2007 he tried to lodge the report to this effect at the Police Station but the police refused to lodge the report, whereas in the private complaint submitted by the complainant on 14.02.2007, altogether different stand has been taken. It is stated in the complaint that on 04.02.2007 and 05.02.2007 son of the complainant had gone to Police Station Jawar to lodge the report against the accused about the unnatural death of deceased Sampat Bai, but the police refused to lodge the report. Thus, the averments made in the written report submitted by the complainant and the averments made in the private complaint are contradictory. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the statements of PW1 Madan Lal, father of the deceased and PW8 Shanti Bai, mother of the deceased. All other independent witnesses declared hostile. The father of the deceased Madan Lal (PW1) in his examination-in-chief has stated that although he was present at the time of cremation and was intended to lodge the report about the unnatural [3] DB CRIM. REVISION 124/2008 death of his daughter but no person from the matrimonial village of his daughter accompanied him for lodging the report at the Police Station, but in the cross examination it has been stated that regarding unnatural death of his daughter he was informed by Janki Lal and Kamlesh, who was minor and student of Vth Class when he had gone to attend the 'Nukta' ceremony of Mangilal Gadari. Although both Janki Lal and Kamlesh were examined, but they did not support the story of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Upon perusal of the statement of the SHO PW10 Mangilal Yadav, it reveals that the report was lodged after 18 days of the incident as the petitioner was informed by Janki Lal and Kamlesh at the time of attending 'Nukta' ceremony of Mangilal regarding unnatural death of his daughter and then only the report was lodged, upon which FIR was registered at Police Station Jawar on 23.02.2007. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the overall statements of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on the record. All the independent witnesses have been declared hostile and even the statements of father of the deceased PW1 Madan Lal and mother of the deceased PW8 Shanti Bai also not supported the prosecution story and contradictory stand has been taken by the complainant in the private complaint [4] DB CRIM. REVISION 124/2008 and in the written report and no explanation for this contradictory stand has been given and also not given the explanation as to why report was lodged after an inordinate delay of 18 days, whereas it is not disputed that at the time of cremation of deceased Samat Bai, PW1 Madan Lal, father of the deceased was present. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Upon careful perusal of the observations and findings given by the Court below vide impugned judgment dated 29.08.2007, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused-respondent Dhanraj, therefore, he has rightly been acquitted from the offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar vide impugned judgment dated 29.08.2007 and the same requires no interference by this Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/