1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Suresh Kumar vs. The State of Raj. & ors. D.B. Criminal Revision No. 164/08 against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.11/2002 (37/2000). Date of Judgment: March 12th,2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. Mr. J.R. Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Godara for the respondent. ... BY THE COURT( Per Hon'ble Mr.Tatia,J): This revision petition has been preferred by complainant Suresh Kumar to challenge the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh passed in Sessions Case No.11/02 (37/2000), whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra acquitted the accused Man Singh, Ram Kumar and 2 Bhal Singh from the charge for commission of offence under Sections 302/34, 449, 364 and 342, IPC and also acquitted the accused Sher Singh, Amar Chand, Ranveer and Surat Singh from the charge under Sections 147, 452 and 323, IPC by giving benefit of doubt. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.9.1999 at 6 a.m., the complainant Suresh Kumar s/o Munshi Ram Jat resident of Ratanpur Tehsil Bhadra gave a written report to the SHO, Police Station, Bhadra stating therein that his father has enmity with Ram Kumar and Surat Singh etc. Yesterday on 25.9.1999, the complainant Suresh Kumar was working at Village Dabdi under contractor Subh Karan and, therefore, he remained at Village Dabdi in the night. In the early morning at 3 a.m., his brother-in- law (sister's husband) Dariya Singh of Village Sheodanpur came and told him that in the previous evening at about 6 p.m., Ram Kumar,Amar Chand, Man Chand, Surat Singh,Bhal Singh, Bhal Singh's son Ranveer and Sher Singh came with lathis in their hands in the house of complainant's father Munshi Ram and started beating him. They also took said Munshi Ram to the house of Ram Kumar. The complainant immediately, with his brother-in-law rushed to the Village Ratanpur and enquired from his mother about the incident. The complainant's mother told the complainant that 3 all the three persons, named above, forcibly entered in the house of the complainant's father Munshi Ram and started beating him and thereafter dragged him to the house of Ram Kumar. Complainant's mother also told him that when she tried to save her husband, the father of the complainant, Ranveer Singh pushed complainant's mother and she fell down. The house of Ram Kumar was closed by them. This incident was heard by several persons and from village,Devi Lal, Hajari, Likhama, Sheo Chand, Surendra, Balwan, Ranwa etc. came on the spot. She also stated that accused-persons killed Munshi Ram. She also told that some accused persons Ram Kumar and Surat Singh etc. when satisfied that Munshi Ram had died, took him to the hospital and left him there. On this information given by the complainant Suresh Kumar, FIR No.441/99 was registered under Sections 302, 365, 452, 342, 143, IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused accused Ram Kumar, Man Singh and Bhal Singh under Sections 302, 364, 450 and 342/34, IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, which was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge,Bhadra. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments on framing of charge, framed the charges against Man Singh, Ram Kumar and Bhal Singh under 4 Sections 302/34, 449,364 and 342, IPC. After examination of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 Ram Lal Beniwal, PW-2 Suresh Kumar, PW-3 Sarbati,PW-4 Sheo Chand, PW-5 Likhma Ram, PW-6 Devi Lal, PW-7 Hajari and PW-8 Dariya Singh, the complainant submitted an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C.. Then by order dated 1.8.2003, cognizance was taken for committing offence under Sections 452, 323 and 147, IPC against accused Surat Singh, Amar Chand, Sher Singh and Ranveer and charges were framed against the above accused under above sections. In the trial court, the prosecution produced 16 witnesses and re-summoned the witness Shiv Bhagwan Godara and his statement was recorded. In documentary evidence, the prosecution produced FIR, site report, seizure memos, the FSL report, post-mortem report, recoveries etc. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313,Cr.P.C. The trial court held that out of total 15 witnesses, the independent witnesses PW-4 Sheo Chand, PW-5 Likhma Ram and PW-7 Hajari did not support the prosecution and they were declared hostile. So far as other witnesses who supported the prosecution case about commission of the offence by the accused- 5 persons, they all were close relatives of the deceased and who were PW-2 Suresh Kumar-son of the deceased, PW-3 Sarbati-wife of the deceased, PW-8 Dariya Singh-son-in-law of the deceased, PW-11 Satveer-maternal grand-son of deceased, PW-12 Balwan- nephew of deceased. The trial court considered evidence of these witnesses of the relatives in detail after rejecting the contention of defence that they all are relatives and, therefore, their statements cannot carry much weight. The trial court after appreciation of the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to prove that any of the offences were committed by any of the accused for which they were charged. Hence this revision has been filed by the complainant, son of the deceased, against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn our attention to the case of the prosecution and submitted that at least there is evidence to prove the offence under Sections 449, 452, 147 and 323, IPC. It is submitted that even on the basis of trustworthy one witness, the court can convict the accused for commission of offence. It is submitted that PW-3 Sarbati wife of the deceased clearly stated that the accused persons entered in the house of the 6 said witness and her husband deceased Munshi Ram and dragged Munshi Ram from the house after giving beatings to Munshi Ram. They came together and committed offence. Her statement finds corroboration from witness PW-11 Satveer,the maternal grand son of the deceased and the the witness PW-3 Sarbati. Further witness PW-2 Suresh Kumar son of the deceased who reached on the spot after the incident, in normal course, inquired from his mother and made report to the Police Station. PW-12 Balwan is also an eye- witness, who stated that on 25.9.1999 at about 6 p.m, he was going towards his elder father Munshi Ram's house and when he reached near the house of Ram Kumar, he saw that Man Singh, Surat Singh etc. were beating Munshi Ram and were taking Munshi Ram towards the house of Ram Kumar and they were having lathis in their hands and they closed the house of Ram Kumar. It is submitted that the injuries on the body of Munshi Ram find support from the medical report. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire record. It is clear from the reasons given by the trial court for acquitting all the accused persons that the allegation of the prosecution is that there were seven persons with sticks and came 7 to the house of Munshi Ram and after giving beating by lathis, they dragged said Munsi Ram to the house of Ram Kumar and on the way, there were house of Mohar Singh, Raju Ram, Bhani Ram, Indraj, Jeet Singh etc. and none of independent witness was produced by the prosecution. The site map prepared by the prosecution also shows that from the house of Munshi Ram to the house of Ram Kumar there were houses of so many persons. Inspite of the fact that Munsi Ram was overpowered by the accused persons and he was dragged to the house of Ram Kumar and during this period, the victim and his wife were crying for safety, still the prosecution failed to produce any independent witnesses, whose presence cannot be denied on the spot at the relevant time. Not only this the total injuries on the body of the deceased and their nature clearly shows that all the injuries on the body of the deceased were simple and were from blunt object only. As per the medical report, the cause of death is not the injuries inflicted upon Munsi Ram but cause of death is due to the consumption of alcohol and the doctor clearly deposed that the deceased was suffering from lungs problems which is normally due to consumption of more liquor. The trial court considered the evidence of each witness referred above in detail and gave reasons 8 for discarding their evidence after finding that they are not reliable witnesses and PW-11 Satveer, the maternal grand son of the deceased appears to be planted witness only. The revisional court need not to re-appreciate all the evidence and even if the revisional court reaches to the conclusion which may be different than the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, even then the order of acquittal cannot be altered. In this case, after going through the entire evidence on record and the reasons given by the trial court with respect to entire evidence, this Court is of the view that the trial court committed no mistake in acquitting all the accused persons. In view of the above, the revision petition of the petitioner is dismissed. ( BHANWAROO KHAN) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.