D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007 in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/2007. The State or Raj. vs. Raju 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT The State of Raj. vs. Raju D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/07 under Section 378(iii) and (i), Cr.P.C.against the judgment dated 29.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track) No.2, Bali in Sessions Case No.8/2007. Date of Judgment: July 29, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA,J. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P. for the State. Mr. Dhirendra Singh for the respondents. BY THE COURT : The State has submitted this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.6.2007 passed in Sessions Case NO.8/2007 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track) NO.2, Pali, by which for charges under Section 302 and 364, one of the accusded Tej Pal has been convicted but respondent Raju has been acquitted by the trial court. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.9.2006, the D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007 in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/2007. The State or Raj. vs. Raju 2 complainant Prakash submitted a typed information in the Police Station, Marwar Junction stating therein that his elder sister Smt. Pista aged 52 years was residing permanently at Bangalore. About a month ago, his sister came to live with complainant's mother Smt. Ghewari Devi. Tej Pal is neighbour of the complainant and he took some loan from complainant's sister. Tej Pal told Smt. Pista that for repayment of loan, he will have to go to Bank at Marwar Junction. Smt. Pista, therefore, went with accused Tej Pal for going to Marwar Junction by train. However, Smt. Pista did not come back to the house, therefore, on 19.9.2006, a report about missing of Smt. Pista was lodged.The complainant subsequently, came to know that in fact Tej Pal and his colleagues Ratan and Raju killed Smt. Pista and took away her ornaments which have been disclosed by the complainant in the report. On these allegations, FIR No.159 dated 19.9.2006 was registered as at that time the complainant's apprehension was that Smt. Pista might have been killed and there was no positive information to the complainant that Smt. Pista has D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007 in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/2007. The State or Raj. vs. Raju 3 already been killed. After investigation, challan was submitted against the two accused Tej Pal and Raju for offences under Section 664, 302 and 302/34, IPC. The prosecution produced as many as 20 witnesses. The trial court after considering the evidence and the documents placed on record, acquitted respondent Raju for the charges referred above. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the State. It appears from the judgment of the trial court that the trial court, after considering the entire evidence and particularly the alleged recovery of one gold ring, held that there is no evidence of seeing deceased Raju at any point of time nor the recovery of the gold ring has been proved by trustworthy evidence. The other witnesses were neither knowing respondent Raju nor they identified accused in any manner. The trial court also reached to the conclusion that respondent Raju was very much available in the town of Bhinmal from 4.9.2006 to 17.9.2006 and this fact has been proved from the prosecution witnesses PW-19 Bhanwar Lal and PW-20 Bhikh Singh. D.B.Criminal Leave to Appeal No.195/2007 in D.B.Criminal Appeal No.----/2007. The State or Raj. vs. Raju 4 We perused the statements of the witnesses. It appears from the statements of PW-9 Ghewari Devi, PW-10 Shanti Lal, PW08 Jayanti Lal, PW-12 Smt. Pista w/o Tara Chand and PW-11 Prakash that there is no direct evidence against respondent Raju for commission of offence, individually or with accused Tej Pal. After going through all the reasons given by the trial court and after considering all the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error of fact or law in acquitting respondent Raju. There is no merit in the petition for leave to appeal. Hence the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. ( C. M. TOTLA) ,J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt