In this S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court held that no case of interference was made out regarding the trial court's acquittal of the respondents in a criminal trial involving suicide.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 330/2016
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr. Trilok Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
11/10/2018
Mr. Trilok Joshi puts in appearance on behalf of respondents. Hence, service is complete.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the judgment impugned as well as the record, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid and substantial grounds for grant of leave to appeal.
The trial court while taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution particularly the evidence of complainant PW-7 Swarn Singh, PW-8 Girdawar Singh, PW-9 Jodh Singh and PW-11 Chhindra Kaur, who are relatives of deceased, has came to the conclusion that the prosecution story is not
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-330/2016]
reliable. The FIR was filed after a delay of four days i.e. on 28.04.2010. The deceased committed suicide on 24.08.2010, whereas PW-7 Swarn Singh received the body of deceased on 25.08.2010 in the presence of police but did not complain about the commission of crime by the respondents. The trial court while taking into consideration serious contradictions and significant improvements in the statements of PW-7 Swarn Singh, PW-8 Girdawar Singh, PW-9 Jodh Singh and PW-11 Chhindra Kaur has observed that their testimonies cannot be relied upon as it appears that all the said witnesses, who are brother, uncle and mother of the deceased, have given false evidence with the intention to implicate the respondent No.2, wife of the deceased.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, and after taking into consideration the statements of PW-3 Manjeet Singh @ Bittu has observed that as per the said witnesses, the deceased was under mental agony because the brother and other family members of the deceased were in illegal possession of his agriculture land and were not giving any returns in lieu of that. The trial court has also recorded the finding of this effect that no definite and conclusive evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove that the respondent No.2 was in illicit relation with the respondent No.1.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, I don’t find any illegality in the findings arrived at by the trial court.
Hence, no case of interference is made out.
(3 of 3)
[CRLLA-330/2016]
Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal is
dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Abhishek Kumar S.No.63
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are valid and substantial grounds for grant of leave to appeal.
State Of Rajasthan
Kewal Krishan Chhabda
Nindarjeet Kaur
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
