State of Rajasthan v. Chhatar Singh

: Mr. Rinesh Gupta Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chauhan Mr. Sarwat Alam HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 19/02/2025 Order Appellant State has filed this appeal challenging judgment dated 21.07.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in sessions case No. 38/98//81/98 titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhatar Singh”, whereby respondent has been acquitted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.02.1998 PW-1 Shaukeen Singh (complainant) submitted a written report (Ex-P- 1) at Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, wherein it was mentioned that on 18.02.1998 complainant’s son-Shailendra Singh was coming from Badi with his niece-Onkar Kaur(PW-3) on Scooter. At 6:30 PM, Onkar Kaur rushed to the house and stated that respondent Chatar Singh had fired Shailendra Singh at nahar [2025:RJ-JP:7911-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLA-241/2000] ki patari. When the deceased-Shailendra rode the scooter respondent Chater Singh stopped the scooter and asked who was accompanying him. Deceased-Shailendra Singh asked to respondent to give side and let them go, but he didn’t do so and fired at the Shailendra Singh. On information of Onkar Kaur, complainant and Trilochan Singh reached at the spot. At that time, Prem Singh, who was working near the agricultural field also reached there. When the complainant went near Shailendra Singh, he was found dead and blood was oozing. The complainant and other persons took Shailendra Singh to Badi Hospital, where he was declared dead. On that basis of complaint of Shaukeen Singh, FIR No. 35/98 (Ex.P-2) was lodged. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent. Charges were framed against the respondent for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He denied the same and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution got examined Shaukeen Singh as PW-1, Trilochan Singh as PW-2, Onkar Kaur as PW-3, Prem Singh as PW-4, Gurudarshan Singh as PW-5, Sarjeet Singh as PW-6, Gurudev Singh as PW-7, Gopal Singh as PW-8, Mangilal as PW-9, Dr. Vikas Nainiwal as PW-10, Ramdas as PW-11 and Ranjeet Singh as PW-12. Statement of the accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who stated that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. [2025:RJ-JP:7911-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLA-241/2000] Accused in his defence got examined Jorawar Singh as DW-1 and Roop Singh as DW-2. After hearing the prosecution as well as learned counsel for the respondent, the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.07.1999 acquitted the respondent for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that trial Court had committed an error in acquitting the respondent for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. Trial Court had not appreciated the rightly evidence led by the prosecution. He further submits that trial Court had wrongly disbelieved the evidence of PW-3 Onkar Kaur. PW-3 Onkar Kaur, who was eye-witness of the incident clearly mentioned that respondent had fired at deceased- Shailendra Singh. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that as per the post mortem report, deceased died due to gun-shot injury. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-3 Onkar Kaur. Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that PW-3 Onkar Kaur recognized the accused at once and informed the father of the deceased. Shaukeen Singh and Trilochan Singh rushed to the spot and they found that Shailendra Singh was lying on the floor and blood was oozing. They took him to hospital where he was declared dead. He further submits that prosecution beyond reasonable doubt proved its case and firearm was recovered from the respondent. Investigating Officer had proved the recovery of the firearm. So, judgment dated 21.07.1999 [2025:RJ-JP:7911-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLA-241/2000] passed by the trial Court be set aside and respondent be convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and submitted that trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the alleged offences because prosecution failed to produce the cogent evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that recovery of the firearm was not proved. FSL report was not exhibited during trial to prove that so-called firearm which was allegedly used in the incident, was recovered from the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that statement of Onkar Kaur was not trustworthy. She did not know accused prior to the incident. Investigating Officer had not conducted identification parade. Recovery witnesses Ram Niwas and Rajendra Singh were not examined by the prosecution. Prosecution also not exhibited the article recovered from the accused. So, trial Court rightly acquitted the accused from the alleged offences. So, the present appeal filed by the State being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. Trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act clearly mentioned that prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of the recovery witnesses Ram Niwas and Rajendra Singh [2025:RJ-JP:7911-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLA-241/2000] and also failed to exhibit firearm allegedly recovered from the respondent. Prosecution also failed to submit the FSL report regarding fire arm and blood samples. There are major contradictions in the statement of Onkar Kaur. Investigating Officer had not conducted any test identification parade. So, in our considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in acquitting the respondent for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. So, the present appeal filed by the State being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/20