[2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/2001
State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Khayali son of Bhoorya (since died)
2. Chuttan son of Sonyaram
3. Rewarram son of Kaluram (since died)
4. Puran son of Gyarsa
5. Rampratap son of Ramchander
6. Badri son of Chhajya (since died)
7. Ramjilal son of Mewaram
8. Harikishan son of Badri
9. Murari son of Budharam
10. Lichaman son of Ramdhan
resident of Bidhota, P.S. Tehla, Rajgarh, District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment RESERVED ON :: 26/09/2023 PRONOUNCED ON :: 03/10/2023 (Per - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhandari, J.)
1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar, whereby he has acquitted all the accused respondents for the offences mentioned as under:-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001]
- Appellant Nos.1 to 6 - Khayali, Chuttan, Rewarram, Puran, Rampratap & Badri have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323, 326/149, 325/149 of IPC.
- Appellant Nos.7 & 10 - Ramjilal and Lichaman have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323, 326/149, 325 of IPC.
- Appellant No.8 - Harikishan has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 326, 325/149 of IPC.
- Appellant No.9 - Murari has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323, 326/149, 325/149 of IPC.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, accused respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6 - Khayali, Rewarram and Badri have expired and therefore, appeal was abated against them and now, the appeal survives only against accused respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 & 7 to 10 - Chuttan, Puran, Rampratap, Ramjilal, Harikishan, Murari and Lichaman.
3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.07.1997, complainant - Mahadeva (PW-1) lodged a report (Exhibit-P1) before the SHO, Police Station, Tehla stating that on 13.07.1997 at about 8:00 am he himself, his brother - Badriya and Gulla Ram were sitting at Peepliwala Kuwa and at that time, accused - Moharlal, Rampratap, Ramjilal, Rewar and Badri came with deadly weapons and began to dismantle the boundary wall (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001] (Doli) of their field. When they objected, Moharpal gave a blow on his head. When Badri and Gulla tried to save him, then all the accused respondents caused injuries to his brother, upon which, Gulla, brother of the complainant, expired on the next day. On the basis of the said report, police registered FIR No.111/1997 (Exhibit-P21) and after conclusion of investigation, filed a charge- sheet against the accused respondents. The case was committed to the learned Trial Court. After committal of the case, charges were framed by the learned Trial Court against the accused respondents. The accused denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, 13 witnesses were examined and 46 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Explanation of the accused respondents was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In Defence, statement of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sharma (DW-1) was recorded and 10 documents were exhibited. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, came to the conclusion that the incident took place on the spur of the movement. It was a cross case. The respondent side i.e. accused in this case had also filed an FIR, prior to the FIR lodged by the complainant of this case. The learned Trial Court also observed that both the sides have sustained injuries and acquitted the accused respondents, aggrieved by which, the appellant - State has preferred the instant appeal.
4. It is contended by learned Additional Government Advocate that the learned Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2000. It is also contended that though he has assailed the validity of the impugned judgment and (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001] order dated 05.08.2000, but during the course of arguments, he has conceded that co-accused - Moharpal was separately tried and vide judgment and order dated 20.11.2004, he was acquitted and against his acquittal, State has preferred a Criminal Leave to Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was rejected by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 30.08.2005.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order. It is contended that after the impugned order dated 05.08.2000 was passed, case of accused Moharpal was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and vide its order dated 20.11.2004, he was acquitted and against his acquittal, the State preferred a D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.61/2005 titled as State of Raj. Versus Moharpal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2005. It is argued that the case of the present accused respondents is akin to that of Moharpal.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents that the prosecution has not given any explanation with regard to the injuries sustained by the accused respondents. It is also contended that as per the FIR, the incident took place when the boundary wall of the complainant's field was being dismantled by the accused side, however, Investigating Officer - Ramsharan Sharma (PW-13) has admitted that the dispute took place with regard to right of passage. It is further contended that initially, in the FIR, only 5 persons were named whereas, the police has filed charge-sheet against 11 persons. It (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001] is also contended that case of the present accused respondents is not distinguishable from that of co-accused - Moharpal, whose acquittal has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.
7. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record.
8. It is pertinent to note that complainant - Mahadeva (PW-1) lodged the FIR after an inordinate delay. The incident is stated to have taken place at 8:00 am on 13.07.1997 and the FIR was lodged at 3:00 am on 14.07.1997. It is also pertinent to note that prior to lodging of the FIR by the complainant side, the accused side had also lodged an FIR with regard to the injuries sustained by them. It is evident to note that the cause of occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses is not tallying with that stated by the Investigating Officer - Ramsharan Sharma (PW-13). As per the Investigating Officer, the dispute took place with regard to the passage, whereas as per the prosecution witnesses, when the accused side were trying to dismantle the boundary wall of the field of the complainant side, the dispute arose.
9. From the perusal of the certified copy of the injury reports (Exhibit-D-5 to Exhibit-D-10), it is evident that the accused side has also sustained injuries. Exhibit-D-5 is the injury report of Chhutan; Exhibit-D-6 is the injury report of Khyali; Exhibit-D-7/A is the injury report of Harikishan; Exhibit-D-8/A is the injury report of Badri, Exhibit-D-9/A is the injury report of Murari Lal and Exhibit-D-10/A is the injury report of Lichaman. Accused (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001] respondents - Lichaman has sustained 3 injuries including 2 incised wounds caused by a sharp weapon; Murari Lal has sustained 4 injuries including 1 lacerated wound; Badri has also sustained 1 lacerated wound; Harikishan has sustained 3 injuries including 1 lacerated wound; Khyali has sustained 3 bruise injuries and Chhutan has also sustained 1 bruise injury. It is pertinent to note that the complainant (PW-1) in his cross-examination has stated that the accused side were dismantling the boundary wall of his brother, whereas in the report (Exhibit-P-1), the complainant has mentioned that his boundary wall was being dismantled. Hence, the genesis of the crime has not been properly placed before the Court.
10. It is also pertinent to note that after passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2000, co-accused Moharpal was also tried by the Court below and he was acquitted vide order dated 20.11.2004. Against the acquittal order, the State preferred a D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2005. The case of the present accused respondents is akin to that of co- accused Moharpal and the learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for acquittal of the accused respondents.
11. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any force in the present appeal and no ground has been urged before the Court so as to entertain the present appeal. Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellant - State is dismissed and the impugned (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:25216-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-389/2001] judgment and order dated 05.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar, is upheld.
12. A certified copy of this order along with record of the case be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /PS
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:28:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)