Dismissed

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Manphool Singh B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024CRLLA/120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Leave to Appeal preferred by the victim against the acquittal of two respondents for offences including kidnapping and rape. No grounds were found to干扰 the trial court's well-reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 120/2019 dismissed. All pending applications dismissed.

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Manphool… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:3822]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 120/2019

¶4

Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Manphool Singh B/c Jat, R/o Mahala Ki Dhani Tan Titanwad Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj.

¶8

Naresh Kumar S/o Dharampal B/c Jat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Shahpur Singhana Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶9

Sarita D/o Mahaveer B/c Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mahala Ki Dhani Tan Titanwad Ps Gudhagorji Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶10

Vikas S/o Mahaveer, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Mahala Ki Dhani Tan Titanwad Ps Gudhagorji Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶14

Order

¶15

23/01/2024

¶16

None appears on behalf of the appellant.

¶17

This criminal leave to appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2019 passed by learned Session Judge, Jhunjhunu in Session Case No.82/2015 (CIS No.1688/2015) whereby respondent Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted under Sections 366, 368, 368/120B, 384, 376(D), 376/120B & 506 of IPC.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that complainant Vijendra Singh submitted a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu stating that he and accused No.3 & 4 are residents of same Dhani. His sister was sleeping at

[2024:RJ-JP:3822]

[CRLLA-120/2019]

(2 of 3)

home but at 6:00 am on 02.05.2014, she was found to be missing and there is reasonable apprehension that his sister has been kidnapped by Naresh Kumar, Sarita and Vikas.

¶23

On the aforesaid complaint, police registered a case bearing FIR No.213/2014 for the offences under Sections 344, 366 & 120B of IPC. After completing investigation, accused No.2 was chargesheeted under Sections 366 & 376 of IPC.

¶24

Vide order dated 14.01.2016, accused Sarita and Vikas were also summoned and after framing charges against the accused persons under various Sections, trial was commenced.

¶25

During the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and statements of accused Naresh Kumar, Sarita and Vikas under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded.

¶26

The learned trial court after analyzing of statement of prosecutrix PW8 opined that from the evidence, it appears that respondent Naresh Kumar and prosecutrix were having relationship and they were exchanging calls. The learned trial court after considering the call details Ex.D7 categorically held that from 02.05.2015, accused Naresh Kumar and prosecutrix were exchanging calls.

¶27

The learned trial court has also disbelieved the prosecution story, as in the FIR, it has been stated that prosecutrix was sleeping up to 4:00 am in the house, whereas, prosecutrix herself in her statement has stated that she was called in birthday party at 09:30 pm by the accused Naresh Kumar, Sarita & Vikas.

¶28

The learned trial court has also considered the statement of Surendar Singh PW9 who is brother of the victim in his statement he has stated that when he arrived at his residence at about 11:00

[CRLLA-120/2019]

[2024:RJ-JP:3822]

(3 of 3)

pm, then prosecutrix was sleeping on her bed, whereas, prosecutrix in her Court statement has totally denied the fact that she was sleeping at her home.

¶33

The learned trial court has also disbelieved the probability of the story put forth by the prosecutrix as the evidence shows that prosecutrix travelled with the accused Naresh Kumar from Jhunjhunu to Tripura and there was no attempt on the part of the prosecutrix to raise alarm against the accused Naresh Kumar.

¶34

The learned trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidence of PW8 prosecutrix in the above judgment. It is also apparent from the evidence of Shaifali PW3 and Mithun PW4 that prosecutrix and accused Naresh Kumar resided at Tripura on rent in their house and prosecutrix was doing her regular work and living happily with the accused Naresh Kumar. The above evidence shows that prosecutrix herself went with the accused Naresh Kumar and resided at different places with her own wish.

¶35

In view of the above, I do not find any cogent ground to allow the present criminal leave to appeal. Accordingly, the present criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶36

All pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶37

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶38

12-Rahul

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Manphool Singh B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Manphool Singh B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri Ramsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Son of Shri Harisingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Maluram Yogi B/C Yogi Vs Muskan Yogi W/O Rakesh Kumar Yogi D/O Shri Ramavtar Yogi

Manna Lal Saini S/O Shri Chanda Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Nemi Chand Son of Banshidhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Phool Singh Son of Lohre Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan