Full Judgment
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
D.B.CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.58/2014 State of Rajasthan Versus Kuljeet Singh & ORS.Date of Order :: 31.07.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ATUL KUMAR JAIN Mr.J.P.Bhardwaj - Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT : By this application, leave is sought to appeal the judgment dated 02.12.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.45/2012.
In brief, facts of the case are that on 19.04.2010, a written report was submitted by one Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta (P.W.1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Loonkaransar with assertion that he is having a petrol pump in the name of “B.L.Gupta Highway Services”.
at Bamanwali on National Highway No.15.
On 19.04.2010 at about 09.00 a.m., he received an information on his cellular phone No.9829719319 from Mani Ram about murder of 2 persons, namely, Bhanwar Singh and [2].Puraba Ram, working as salesman on the petrol pump referred above.
On receiving the information, the complainant rushed to the spot of occurrence and also tendered necessary information about the incident to the police control room.
On reaching at petrol pump, it was stated to him by Mani Ram that in early morning at about 08.45 a.m., he came to the petrol pump from Village Bamanwali.
He found Bhanwar Singh and Puraba Ram lying dead on cot.
Mani Ram on asking also disclosed that a sum of Rs.55,000/- has also been looted by certain unknown persons.
On basis of the information given, a case was registered for investigation of the occurrence relating to the crime punishable under Section 302, 394 and 450 IPC.
After regular investigation, accused Harjeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Indra Singh, Gora @ Rafeeq, Dharmendra Singh, Raj Singh @ Raja and Kuljeet Singh were arrested.
Necessary charges were also framed and on completion of the investigation, a police report was filed before the court competent.
On 23.09.2010, necessary charges were framed against the accused persons.
On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired.
The trial court framed 9 points for adjudication and in support of the prosecution case, evidence was adduced.
Opportunity to explain the adveRs.and incriminating circumstances with the [3].prosecution evidence was also given to the accused persons.
The accused while availing the same, termed the entire evidence false and concocted.
They also pleaded their innocence.
The trial court after examining the entire material available on record arrived at the conclusion that a reasonable doubt exists to accept the prosecution case.
Accordingly, all accused persons were acquitted.
The argument advanced by learned Public Prosecutor while pressing this application is that the trial court failed to appreciate that the finger prints and foot moulds taken from the spot of occurrence were matching with the finger prints and foot moulds of the accused persons.
The trial court had no just reason to ignore this material piece of evidence.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that no report of availing finger prints and foot moulds was prepared during the couRs.of investigation.
It is also relevant to notice that the finger prints and foot moulds were admittedly kept in open place being no properly sealed, thus, the trial court treated the same not trustworthy.
In our opinion, the conclusion arrived is just and proper.
It is further submitted that at the instance of [4].accused Indrajeet Singh, certain documents were recovered disclosing that he deposited Rs.3300/- in his bank account after making loot and cash of Rs.4650/- was recovered at the instance of accused Ranjeet Singh.
At the instance of accused Kuljeet Singh, an iron rod was recovered as per document Ex.P/88.
Certain other recoveries were made including recovery of a stick at the instance of accused Raj Singh as per document Ex.P/90, but the trial court overlooked this material evidence.
In our opinion, this argument too is having no merit.
The trial court examined the entire issue in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the evidence adduced is not supported by independent witnesses and beside that, the recoveries in our opinion do not connect the accused with the crime in question.
No other argument is advanced to support the leave application.
In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any reason to grant the leave as prayed for.
The application is dismissed, accordingly.
[ATUL KUMAR JAIN]., J.
[GOV IND MATHUR]., J.
Pramod