[2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 720/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Appellant Versus Mamraj S/o Shri Bholuram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Todi Ki Dhani Tan Manoharpur, Police Station Manoharpur, Dist. Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, P.P. assisted by Mr. Vibhor Arora & Ms. Neha Goyal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 13/05/2025 PER BHUWAN GOYAL J. : 1. This criminal leave to appeal under Section 419(i)(iii) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been directed by the appellant-State challenging impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Shahpura, Jaipur District in Sessions Case No.33/2013, vide which accused- respondent – Mamraj has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.09.2023, complainant – Ramesh (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur Rural to the effect that on 02.09.2013 at 7.00 p.m., his father was sitting at [2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLLA-720/2024] home, when suddenly Mamraj came with a stick in his hands and started hitting with the stick as soon as he came. On hearing the noise, Madanlal Yadav, who was passing by, intervened. His father and brother Sultan went to Police Station to report this incident. After submitting the report, when they were returning home on their without numbered motor-cycle, Mamraj and his 3-4 companions standing at the Bus Stand Manoharpur chased their motor-cycle with Jeep No. RJ-14-UA-4373. When they reached near the Milk Dairy in front of Todi Ki Dhani, Dhabai Bhatta, with intention to kill his father and brother, they hit the motor-cycle from behind with their jeep, due to which his father and brother got seriously injured and both motor-cycle and jeep fell into the ditch on the side of the road. Leaving the jeep on the spot, they fled away. When they came and saw, their condition was very bad. They took them to NIMS Hospital, from where they were referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Now they were undergoing treatment and on account of treatment, the delay took place in submitting the report etc. On the basis of said written report, F.I.R. No. 182/2013 dated 03.09.2013 was registered under Section 307 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. During course of investigation, Nathuram died while undergoing treatment, therefore, police added Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused-respondent for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences against accused-respondent. The [2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLLA-720/2024] prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/19 documents and in defence Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 documents were exhibited. The statement of accused-respondent as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has passed judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 acquitting accused-respondent for the alleged offences. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor on admission. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has produced cogent evidence in the form of testimony of eye-witness P.W. 2 – Sultan, who was injured and P.W. 5 – Girdhari to establish commission of offence of murder of deceased Nathuram and causing grievous injuries to injured Sultan by accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. But the trial court has erred in not believing the testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses including eye-witness and acquitted accused-respondent without any cogent reasons. He has therefore prayed that leave to appeal may be granted to the appellant-State. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced and have gone through impugned judgment and have minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. 6. In the instant case, the criminal prosecution was launched against accused-respondent on the basis of a written report submitted by Ramesh (P.W.1). As per prosecution story and the written report, when deceased Nathuram with his son Sultan (injured) was going on motor-cycle, accused-respondent chased their motor-cycle with jeep and with intention to kill them, hit the [2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLLA-720/2024] motor-cycle from behind with the jeep, due to which both got seriously injured and Nathuram died while undergoing treatment. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced P.W. 1 – Ramesh, the author of F.I.R., who in his cross-examination has admitted that when he reached the spot, Sultan and Nathuram were unconscious. Thus, he is not an eye-witness and has deposed hearsay version of the prosecution story. 7. P.W. 2 – Sultan is stated to be injured in the incident. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he and his father (deceased) were on the motor-cycle; he was driving the motor- cycle and his father was pillion rider; jeep driver Mamraj hit their motor-cycle. In his cross-examination also, he has stated that at the time of accident, he and his father were on the motor-cycle and no third person was with them. However, the testimony deposed by him did not find corroboration from the statements of P.W. 10 – Indraj and P.W. 22 – Krishna Kumar, the Investigation Officer and P.W. 24 – Surgyan Singh because they have admitted in their cross-examination that at the time of incident, three persons were on motor-cycle and Indraj was also accompanying Sultan and Nathuram. It is also pertinent to mention that their motor-cycle was hit from behind, this fact also does not find corroboration from the statement of P.W. 22 – Krishna Kumar, the Investigation Officer, who in his cross-examination has admitted that in the Inspection Memo of Motor-cycle (Ex.P/16), there is no mention of any injury or sprain on the mudguard of the motor- cycle. In case, a jeep hits a motor-cycle from behind, it is possible that rear mudguard of motor-cycle may get sprained. In [2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLLA-720/2024] this regard, it is also pertinent to note that P.W. 24 – Surgyan Singh has stated in his cross-examination that jeep commander was moving ahead and he did not know how motor-cycle came from behind and hit it. However, this witness has not been subjected to re-examination by the prosecution on this point. 8. Indraj has been produced by the prosecution as P.W. 10. In his examination-in-chief, he has not supported the prosecution story as well as statement of P.W. 2 – Sultan and declared hostile. He has stated that he did not know who hit the motor-cycle. He has denied that Mamraj chased them from the Manoharpur Police Station and hit their motor-cycle with jeep. 9. The prosecution has also produced other eye-witnesses viz. Girdhari, who is real brother of deceased and Vijay Singh. P.W. 5 – Girdhari has admitted in his cross-examination that he reached the place of incident after five minutes of the accident. When he reached the spot, then person who was sitting inside the vehicle, fled away. He has also admitted that at the time of accident, he did not see accused and he reached the spot later. P.W. 12 – Vijay Singh has also admitted in his cross-examination that there was a loud explosion in the accident. He reached the spot five minutes after the explosion. Further, in his cross-examination, he has stated that jeep was of white colour. He has also stated that motor-cycle was of black colour and had numbers written on its plate, whereas, as per MTO Report of the jeep (Ex.P/17), colour of the jeep was shown as slati colour. Further, as per MTO Report of motor-cycle (Ex.P/16) there was no mention of numbers written on front and rare number plates. Thus, the statements of these [2025:RJ-JP:20119-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLLA-720/2024] witnesses that they had witnessed the incident, are also not worthy of credence. 10. So far as other prosecution witnesses are concerned, a perusal of record reveals that P.W. 3 – Harphool Gurjar, P.W. 4 – Kishanlal, P.W. 9 – Devkaran Gurjar s/o Kaluram Gurjar, P.W. 11 – Devkaran Gurjar s/o Dholuram Gurjar, P.W. 13 – Shivram, P.W. 14 – Deendayal, P.W. 15 – Sitaram and P.W. 20 - Madanlal have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. Remaining prosecution witnesses are either official witnesses or motbir witnesses. Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, the prosecution has not been able to establish its story against accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to grant leave to appeal and same is hereby rejected. The Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 12. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J INDER/18