The learned Sessions Judge, based on the material available on record, held all the respondents guilty under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine, which came to be challenged by the respondents in Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
In defence, DW1 Rajendra Singh was produced and the statements of prosecution witnesses Pratap and Bhupendra recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were relied as Exhibit D1 and D2.
PW1 Madan Bheel and PW4 Parmanand Bheel were declared hostile and PW5 Smt.
On appraisal of the records, the High Court in its impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2012 recorded a finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is very doubtful, companytradictory and number reliable at all.
Fazlur Rahman, Police Head Constable who took the written report Exhibit P24 and gone to the Police Station and on his written report, FIR was registered, has number been produced.
The prosecution in support thereof produced 25 witnesses and got exhibited Exhibit P1 to P45 in its documentary evidence.
Dayaram and Gulab, who identified the dead body of the deceased Bajranglal and who lifted the dead body from the railway track and kept in side have number been produced.
One person who was standing there revealed that the said dead body was of Bajranglal, retired Constable.
That apart, the witnesses alleging the reason for murder Surendrasingh, Ramgopal, Ramswarup, Girraj Gupta, Premchand and Shyambabu were number produced.
Saroti Bai Bheel disclosed that sometime before she woke up for urinating, she saw twothree persons companying by an auto rikshaw, who had placed the said body on the railway line and had gone away.
This report was sent with Shri Fazlur Rehman, Head Constable for registering a case to Police Station Nayapura, Kota.
In the light of statements of prosecution witnesses suffering from material deficiencies, the High Court arrived at the companyclusion that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution appears to be doubtful, companytradictory and is number safe to rely upon and acquitted the respondents from charge under Section 302, 201 IPC and released them from judicial custody under its impugned judgment dated 3rd January, 2012.
Thereafter, the investigation was done and chargesheet was submitted against the respondents Mahesh Kumar, Dinu Deendayal and Bhaiya Devkaran in the Court of Magistrate.
It has further been observed that the prosecution failed to tender any justification that all the three respondents were arrested on 19th October, 2002 at 11.30 p.m. but why proceedings of the recoveries were undertaken after gap of 3 to 10 days, i.e., on 23rd, 25th, 26th and 29th October, 2002.
679/02 was registered by the Head Constable and First Information Report was sent to the Police Station In charge.
It reveals from the record that most of the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and the statement of witnesses produced suffer from serious material companytradictions.
Thereafter, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The witness Balak Mansingh and Imam of the Memo of Arrest of the accused Exhibit P26, P27, P28 and P32 have number been produced.
Witness Hemraj of Memos Exhibit P30, P35 and P36 and witnesses Manoj, Vijay of Memo Exhibit P41 have number been produced.
The motive of the incident which is allegedly the illicit relation of Sulochana and respondentMahesh, the said Sulochana has number been produced as prosecution witness.
It has also been pointed out by the High Court that the Investigating Officer in his statement has recorded that numberblood marks were found in the auto, which companyld number establish that the auto as alleged was carrying the body of deceased to the railway line.
The witnesses of Memos Exhibit P13, P15, P41, etc.
The aunt of Ramesh who along with PW2 Narendra is alleged to have gone to Rajesh has number been produced.
The Samdhi of deceased Bajranglal and Brijgopal, father of PW5 Rajeshbai were number produced.
At the same time, it was also observed that most of the prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and many important and relevant witnesses without any reason has number been produced by the prosecution.
The witness of Exhibit P20 Bharatram, Rais Mohammad, Surendrasingh and Brijgopal have number been produced.
2, Fast Track, Kota.
On inquiry, Smt.
Crime No.
Dilipsingh have number been produced.
