Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ashu vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 03, 1989
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757751

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 96 of 1987
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 326, 342 and 307 and Criminal Procedure Code--Revision--Magistrate not appreciating properly explanation for delay in filing FIR--Accepting final report without considering statements of witnesses--Held, order deserves to be set aside. ;On the narration of the facts, as mentioned above, the lear...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashu

Advocate Mr. R.K. Charan

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Mr. M.M. Singbvi

Legal References

Reported In
1990(2)WLN186

Excerpt

.....not appreciating properly explanation for delay in filing fir--accepting final report without considering statements of witnesses--held, order deserves to be set aside. ;on the narration of the facts, as mentioned above, the learned magistrate even did not care to appreciate a plausible explanation submitted by ashu for the delay in filing the first information report. he has also not carefully examined the statement of mst. nenu recorded under sections 161, 164, cr. pc. and also did not look into the statements of thakra and achla recorded under section 161, cr.pc. thus, lam constraint to say that the learned magistrate has not properly applied his mind. therefore, the order of the learned magistrate, accepting the final report, dated 24-1-1987 is set aside. ;revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - nenu bad a number of burn.....a.k. mathur, j.1. this is a revision petition filed against the order pasted by the munsif and judicial magistrate, sanchore dated 24-1-1987, whereby the learned magistrate has accepted the final report submitted by the police in fir no. 3/86 under sections 326, 342 and 307, ipc.2. brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that a first information report was filed on 6th january, 1986 at police station cheetalwana by ashu that his daughter nenu was married to the non-petitioner khetaram four years ago and thereafter she remained at her father in law's house. on 16th august, 1985, non-petitioner nos. 2 to 6 conspired and set her on fire after throwing kerosene on her. thereafter, she was taken to dhanera hospital (gujarat) by her husband's elder brother for treatment. when ashu father of mst. nenu came to know about the whole incident, be immediately rushed to the hospital and found that mst. nenu bad a number of burn injuries on her body, at that time she refrained from telling anything as she was under the fear of her in-law. after two months nenu was discharged from the hospital and she was taken to the house of her father-in-law. after that her husband left for bombay and she was again maltreated by her mother-in-law and thrown out. she came to her father's house and narrated the whole story to her father, ashu father of mst. nenu thereafter requested her in-laws for amicable settlement but without any result thereafter, a first information report was filed at police station cheetalwana on 6th january, 1986. during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of mst. nenu. her father ashu, thakra and achla the statement of mst. nenu was also-recorded under section 164, cr.pc on 4th february, 1986 after close of investigatiod the police hied report and did not believe the story given out by mst. nenu and supported by thakra, achla, police submitted the final report and the learned magistrate accepted the same and discharged the.....

Full Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed against the order pasted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore dated 24-1-1987, whereby the learned Magistrate has accepted the final report submitted by the Police in FIR No. 3/86 Under Sections 326, 342 and 307, IPC.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that a First Information report was filed on 6th January, 1986 at police station Cheetalwana by Ashu that his daughter Nenu was married to the non-petitioner Khetaram four years ago and thereafter she remained at her father in law's house. On 16th August, 1985, non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 conspired and set her on fire after throwing kerosene on her. Thereafter, she was taken to Dhanera Hospital (Gujarat) by her husband's elder brother for treatment. When Ashu father of Mst. Nenu came to know about the whole incident, be immediately rushed to the hospital and found that Mst. Nenu bad a number of burn injuries on her body, at that time she refrained from telling anything as she was under the fear of her in-law. After two months Nenu was discharged from the hospital and she was taken to the house of her father-in-law. After that her husband left for Bombay and she was again maltreated by her mother-in-law and thrown out. She came to her father's house and narrated the whole story to her father, Ashu father of Mst. Nenu thereafter requested her in-laws for amicable settlement but without any result Thereafter, a First Information Report was filed at Police Station Cheetalwana on 6th January, 1986. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of Mst. Nenu. her father Ashu, Thakra and Achla The statement of Mst. Nenu was also-recorded Under Section 164, Cr.PC on 4th February, 1986 After close of investigatiod the police hied report and did not believe the story given out by Mst. Nenu and supported by Thakra, Achla, Police submitted the final report and the learned Magistrate accepted the same and discharged the accused. Hence the present revision petition by complainant.

3. I have beard Mr. R.K. Charan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.M. Singbvi learned Counsel for the respondent and Mr. S.M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State and have also gone through the record I am constraint to say that the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report in the present circumstances was wholly unwarranted, casual and without application of mind. The only reason given by the learned Magistrate while accepting the final report was delay in filling the First Information Report at Police Station Cheetalwana. The delay has been explained by Mst. Nenu and Ashu. Mst. Nenu in her statement has deposed that she was kept in the Hospital at Dhanera as an in-door patient for two months and thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital and brought back to her in-laws house at Halibab. Thereafter, her husband left for Bombay and her mother-in-law again started maltreating her and threw her cut and then she came to her father's house. Ashu, father of Mst. Nenu also tried to bring about any amicable settlement and sent the messages to her daughter's-in-law's house and consulted the person of community so that the matter can be settled down amicably but this could not be done. Therefore, he filed the FIR at Police Station Cheetalwana.

4. I have gone through the statement of Mst. Nenu injured, Ashu father Thakra, Achla and some more witnesses and have also gone through the injury report of Mst. Nenu. In her earlier statement, she has stated that while she was preparing the food, some kerosene sprinkled on her body and caught fire. But in her subsequent statement, she has depose that in the morning of 6th August, 1985, she was taken by bet mother-in-law for easing out and when she was in the field her husband Khefaram, her Jeth Bhagwana Jethani Dami wife of Bhagwana came there and ber husband Kbeta Ram and Mst. Dami tied 'odani' on her mouth and her hands were also tied with a Lathi. Thereafter Dami sprinkled kerosene order and ber Jeth Bhagwana set fire by match and she started burning, as a result of burning she became unconscious after some time when 'odani' tied on ber mouth loosen she shouted for help and on bearing her cries Thakra Bisbnoi and Achla Jeth came there and it is stated that thereafter she lost her consciousness. It is alleged that she got consciousness after five days at the hospital at Dhanera. This revision of Mst. Netm has been supported by Thakra and Achla in their statements Under Section 161. The Police has summarily discharged these statements while giving (he final report. In this state of affairs, I am constraint to hold that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind properly, while accepting the final report. More so, looking to the present situtation, the charge Under Section 498A, IPC is also prima facie made out in the present case. But unfortunately the learned Magistrate did not care to look into the matter from that angle also. It is true that while accepting the final report, the learned Magistrate has direction, but he has to exercise that discretion independently on the basis of the evidence on record and should not swade away with the finding of the police. In the present case on narration of the facts, as mentioned above, the learned Magistrate even did not care to appreciate a plausible explanation submitted by Ashu for the delay in filing the first information report. He has also not carefully examined the statement of Mst. Nenu recorded Under Section 161, 164 Cr. PC and also did not look into the statements of Thakra and Achla recorded Under Section 161 Cr. PC. Thus, I am constraint to say that the learned Magistrate has not properly applied his mind. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate, accepting the final report, dated 24-1-87 is set aside. The learned Magistrate should take cognizance and proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law.

5. The revision petition is allowed. The record, whisch has been received, be sent back to the trial court forthwith.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial