Dismissed
Smt. Mali Devi v. State and Anor
Rajasthan HCCRLR/394/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
What the court decided
AI extract
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:4257]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 394/2004
Smt. Mali Devi W/o Shri Pooranmal, D/o Sundaram, R/o Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
| ----Respondents | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Nonepresent |
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
24/01/2024
None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
This criminal revision petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 10.05.2002 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Jaipur, whereby, learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 26.11.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Jaipur convicting the accused Chhoturam for the offences under Sections 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has acquitted the accused from the said offences.
The learned Appellate Court in impugned order dated 10.05.2002 has discussed the entire evidence in detail.
[2024:RJ-JP:4257]
[CRLR-394/2004]
(2 of 4)
It is alleged against the accused Chhoturam that he took illegal electricity connection for his house and due to his negligence, wife of Sundaram died due to electrocuted, It is also alleged against the respondent No.2 that the accident occurred due to breaking of the electricity line, which the accused has taken illegally. The prosecution story mainly rests upon the witnesses PW1 Sundaram, PW-2 Nanda, PW-3 Laxminaraya, PW-4 Narayan and PW-9 Chhitar.
PW-1 Sundaram has lodged the report Ex.-P-1 against the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that whatsoever he has narrated in the F.I.R. was hearsay.
PW-2 Nanda in his cross-examination in chief has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw that current was flowing from the electricity wires. In his cross-examination he has also stated that the said electricity wire was black in colour and electricity wire was covering body of the deceased Soni. It is also stated in his statement that deceased was having injuries at various parts of her body.
The learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of PW-1 Sundaram and PW-2 Nanda. The learned trial court after considering the evidence of PW-2 Nanda reached to the conclusion that statement of PW-2 Nanda is exaggerated to the actual story. The learned trial court has considered the injury report of the deceased, wherein, no injury has been indicated at the chest and legs of the deceased. The learned trial court also disbelieved the testimony of PW-2 Nanda on the aspect that his evidence was contrary to the statement of complainant PW-1 Sundaram.
[2024:RJ-JP:4257]
[CRLR-394/2004]
(3 of 4)
PW-3 Laxminarayan has also given hearsay version about the incident and the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved his testimony as it is not corroborated by any eye-witness. Similarly, PW-4 Narayan is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He has also given the hearsay version regarding culpability of the accused Chhoturam in the alleged incident. The testimony of PW-9 Chhitar has also been disbelieved by the learned Appellate Court as he is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The only eye-witness in the prosecution case was PW-2 Nanda and his statement was disregarded by the trial court due to exaggeration and in contradiction to PW-1 Sundaram.
Thus, from the above discussion, it is apparent that all the material witnesses examined before the learned trial court apart from PW-2 Nanda were uttering hearsay statements. It is settled principles of law that mere hearsay evidence is not sufÏcient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is bounden duty for the prosecution to prove it’s case with cogent evidence. The evidences of PW-1 Sundaram, PW-2 Nanda, PW-3 Laxminarayan, PW-4 Narayan and PW-9 Chhitar were not found to be believable.
The prosecution also relies upon extra judicial confession made before PW-11 Mahendra Singh. It is settled law that extra judicial confession is a feeble evidence until & unless corroborated by cogent evidence. It is always unsafe to rely solely upon the extra judicial confession. PW-11 Mahendra Singh in his statement has stated that accused Chhoturam accepted his fault and also stated the fact that occurrence took place due to illegal electricity connection taken by him.
[2024:RJ-JP:4257]
[CRLR-394/2004]
(4 of 4)
The learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of PW-11 Mahendra Singh on the aspects that confession was not made before him.
PW-11 Mahendra Singh in his cross-examination has accepted the fact that he was not present at the time when accused Chhoturam admitted his fault regarding accident occurred. He has also stated in the cross-examination that on the instance of PW-1 Sundaram he stated the fact that accused confessed before him.
The learned Appellate Court has rightly disregarded the testimony of PW-11 Mahendra Singh on the above aspects. It is also on the record that Investigating OfÏcer was not examined before the learned trial court. The prosecution failed to establish the fact that accused Chhoturam illegally took the electricity connection in his house. The learned trial court after perusing the entire record and appreciating the evidences holistically has rightly acquitted the accused Chhoturam under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. I do not find any substance in the criminal revision petition.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.
Record of the case be sent to the concerned court forthwith.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
3-SURAJ KUMAR
1 issue framed by the court
Was the appellate court's acquittal of the accused under Sections 304-A IPC and 39 Indian Electricity Act sustainable given the hearsay and unreliable evidence?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Mali Devi
State of Rajasthan
Chhoturam
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court