Dismissed

Anil Kumar Yogi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2018CRLLA/255/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court exercised discretion to dismiss criminal Leave to Appeals against acquittal in a murder case. Bailiffs found conflicting motives, lack of corroborative evidence, and material gaps in prosecution evidence regarding medical records and witness timelines.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal filed by the complainant and the State Government was dismissed as no error was found in the order of the trial court.

Anil Kumar Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 255/2017

¶3

Anil Kumar Yogi son of Shri Virendra Yogi, r/o Dabani, Police Station Neemrana, District Alwar Rajasthan

¶4

----Appellant/Complainant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Karan Singh @ Mintu S/o Hawa Singh, by caste Ahir, r/o Dabani, Police Station Neemrana, Alwar Rajasthan.

¶9

Smt. Sushma @ Sunita w/o Shri Anil Kumar Yogi, r/o Dabani, Police Station Neemrana, Alwar Rajasthan.

¶10

Accused Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 546/2016

¶13

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Karan Singh @ Mintu S/o Hawa Singh, aged 21 years, b/c Aheer, R/o Dabani, Police Station Neemrana (Alwar).

¶17

Smt. Sushma @ Sunia W/o Anil Kumar Yogi age 22 years, b/c Yogi r/o Dabani Police Station Neemrana (Alwar)

¶18

----Accused-Respondents

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soniya Sandilya, PP, for the State.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶21

Order

¶22

05/09/2018

¶23

Heard on the criminal Leave to Appeals filed by the complainant as well as the State Government.

¶24

(2 of 5)

¶25

[CRLLA-255/2017]

¶26

It is a case where a report was lodged by PW-11-Anil Kumar on 18.02.2015 at 11.15 AM, stating therein that his father Virendra Singh went to agricultural field on 17.02.2015. It was for watering the field. Ranglal S/o Mathura Prasad had accompanied him and remained there till 4.30 AM. At around 5.00 AM, his ‘Bhabhi’ Sushma went there with tea for the deceased. PW-11 heard noise of the gate where his father was sleeping. He rushed there and saw his father in pool of blood. He immediately took him to Kailash Hospital, Behror. He was having suspicion on Karan Singh @ Bittu for causing offence as he earlier attempted twice and threatened the complainant party to kill the deceased two days prior to the date of incident.

¶27

We find that in the first report, no motive or intention was given for causing offence but, in the Court statement, PW-11 Anil Kumar Yogi stated about loaning to the accused by him and his father. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was given, which was not paid by the accused. When it was demanded, the accused killed the deceased.

¶28

As against the aforesaid, PW-14 Amit (another son of the deceased) has made allegation about illicit relation of accused with his ‘Bhabhi’ (Anil’s wife). It is stated that both of them were seen in compromising condition. The information about illicit relation reached to his father Virendra Singh. The deceased questioned it to accused and, for that reason, accused-Karan Singh killed him. The motive has been shown with contradictory statement before the Court below and there was no corroborative evidence to make out a chain of evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

¶29

Learned counsel for the complainant has made much emphasis on recovery of ‘Kassi’ at the instance of the accused. It

¶30

(3 of 5)

¶31

[CRLLA-255/2017]

¶32

was blood stained yet no discussion on the aforesaid has been made by learned trial court.

¶33

The perusal of the FSL report does not show blood group on the ‘Kassi’ so as to connect the accused with the crime and otherwise there is no other connecting evidence so as to make out a chain of circumstances against the accused. Mere recovery of ‘Kassi’ cannot otherwise be taken to be a conclusive proof of involvement of the accused without any corroborative evidence. It has already been stated that the blood group on the ‘Kassi’ and of the deceased blood has not been disclosed in the FSL report and otherwise, if someone was lastly seen with the deceased then it was Ranglal. It is quite surprising that the statement of Ranglal was recorded by the police on 20.03.2015 i.e. after more than a month of the incident and the statement of deceased’s another son Amit was recorded on 26.03.2015, again after a month.

¶34

Learned counsel for the complainant has made much emphasis on the statement of PW-14 Amit to show motive and involvement of the accused in the incident. It is submitted that before the statement on 26.03.2015, Amit was called by the police for investigation and on his disclosure, his ‘Bhabi’ Sushma @ Sunita was arrested along with Karan Singh but his statement was recorded much subsequent to arrest of Sushma.

¶35

Learned counsel could not clarify as to why statement of Amit was not recorded by the police prior to the arrest of Sushma. Apart from the aforesaid, if the statement of PW-14-Amit is taken into consideration minutely, it would reveal that he resides at Neemrana and came on the date of occurrence. He had left the place on 18.02.2015 and came after working for 15-20 days elsewhere. It is also admitted that there was no report about illicit

¶36

(4 of 5)

¶37

[CRLLA-255/2017]

¶38

relation of the accused with his ‘Bhabhi’ Sushma. It is more so when his father was threatened by the accused. The said witness even made contradictory statement about medical condition of the deceased. At the first instance, he stated that the deceased was conscious but, with second thought, stated that he was unconscious while taken to Kailash Hospital.

¶39

The prosecution has not produced any record of Kailash Hospital to show condition of the deceased. It is as to whether deceased was conscious or unconscious during the treatment. The medical report of the hospital at Delhi was produced which administered treatment much subsequent to the treatment at Kailash Hospital. He was found unconscious there but then for the intervening period, when deceased remained in Kailash Hospital, his condition has not been brought on record by the prosecution. The aforesaid is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution, otherwise, as per the first statement of PW-14 Amit, the deceased was conscious after sustaining injury thus was in a position to make a statement. The disclosure may have been made by the deceased but has been suppressed deliberately by the prosecution. It is not even a case where any one saw accused with the deceased after Ranglal left the place at 4.30 AM on 17.02.2015 and Anil’s wife came with the tea at 5.00 AM. The intervening period is only of half an hour. It is not a case when deceased was last seen with the accused.

¶40

So far as motive is concerned, there exist contradictions in the statements of PW-14-Amit and PW-11-Anil thus it is also going against the prosecution. The recovery of ‘Kassi’ is a weak evidence because blood group on the ‘Kassi’ and the deceased has not been disclosed in the FSL report so as to connect the accused with the

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

[CRLLA-255/2017]

¶43

crime. Thus in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the order of the trial court. It is also a fact that PW-11-Anil in his cross-examination, admitted that name of Karan Singh was given based on suspicion.

¶44

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to accept the Leave to Appeals, rather, finding no error in the order passed by learned trial court, Leave to Appeals are dismissed.

¶45

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶46

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J

¶47

(M.N.BHANDARI),J

¶48

Manish/7-8

Anil Kumar Yogi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yogi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himmat Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Arshad Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sube Singh S/O Sh Sona Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Singh @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Raju @ Raju Sabjiwala Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

State of Rajasthan Vs Karan Singh @ Mintu and Anr.