Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Dinesh (2025:Rj-Jd:3309-Db) on 17 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209/2015
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Dinesh son of Puniya, resident of Gaminiya Moti, Police Station-
Sallaupt, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Respondent/Accused
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Judgment 17/01/2025 To challenge the judgment of acquittal of Dinesh dated 13th March 2014 in Session Case No.86 of 2011, the present Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.
2. On the basis of the written report dated 31st July 2006, given by Partheng, a crime was registered vide Case No.79 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 342, 323, 302 and 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Bheema, Smt. Resham, Hakarsing, Gautam, Ratna, Magan, Gulab, Laxman, Kamji, Havji and Dinesh. After the investigation the aforementioned accused persons were sent up for trial and a charge under Sections 148, 302, 342 and 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all of them. The trial qua Dinesh, (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015] who is the sole respondent in the present Criminal Appeal, was separated and he was put on trial in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011.
3. In support of the case against Dinesh, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and in documentary evidence exhibited 13 documents. The statement of Dinesh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he claimed innocence and that the prosecution witnesses made false allegations deliberately.
4. The prosecution projected PW-6 Mukesh as an eye-witness, on whose instance, the written report was given to the police by Partheng. Though, PW-6 was not declared hostile, the learned trial Court found serious discrepancies in his testimony. Such findings of the Additional District and Sessions Judge are reproduced herein under:-
"Even after examining the medical evidence in conjunction with the eyewitness accounts, the statements of witness Mukesh (PW6) remain unsubstantiated. It is a matter of common understanding that if a person is bound to a tree with a rope and subsequently beaten, the victim would likely exhibit signs of distress, such as groaning from the pain of the injuries, as well as marks from the rope on their body while attempting to free himself. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect that the victim would sustain typical injuries on their back due to the tree's bark. Although the village Gamaniya Hamira may have been sparsely populated, it has not been established that no one other than the accused's family members resided there on the day of the incident. According to the testimony of Dr. Laxmiprakash Nagar (PW9), it is evident that the deceased, Sohan, sustained 24 injuries. Under such circumstances, it is likely that the victim would have cried out, prompting villagers to gather upon hearing his cries. However, the assertion that no one from the village was aware of the incident, especially during a serious crime like murder committed in a public place, is implausible. Furthermore, the ligature marks from the rope are not documented in either the Panchnama report or the post-
mortem report of the deceased. Consequently, the claim that accused Dinesh, along with other accomplices, assaulted Sohan after binding him to the mango tree remains unverified. In this case, no evidence has been recovered from the accused." (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
5. PW-6 Mukesh did support the prosecution while tendering his evidence in the Court but we are inclined to accord our approval to the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court for not accepting his testimony. The inherent improbabilities in his evidence cannot be ignored and he was rightly found not a trustworthy witness. The learned trial Court discussed their evidence and held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the discrepancies found in the testimony of the eye-witness PW-6 Mukesh, raises suspicion with regard to his credibility of the evidence tendered by him. It is also not reasonable to assume that as per the statement of PW-6 Mukesh, if the deceased was tied to a mango tree with rope, he would not have resisted to the same by way of crying or wailing, which would have gathered people from the village, but that is not the case here.
6. Mukesh who was styled as eyewitness of the incident on seeing the accused assaulting Sohan fled from the place of occurrence and did not take any action to save Sohan despite witnessing the assault. He did not make any attempt to intervene or took any steps that could have potentially saved the deceased's life. The conduct of Mukesh cannot be approved and he did not immediately report the incident to anyone and it was only in the evening, when he went to Partheng (PW-1), he disclosed the incident, which raises a question about his credibility.
7. After having gone through the materials on record, we observe that the written report which was lodged one day after the occurrence implicating 11 persons in the crime was on a suspicion that Sohan was done to death on account of his past (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015] relationship with Resham whose marriage was later on solemnized with Bheema. According to the prosecution, on the date of the occurrence Sohan and Mukesh were proceeding to village Gamania Moti and on the way they were apprehended by the accused persons but Mukesh somehow could escape from the clutches of the accused persons. This is the further case of the prosecution that Sohan was tied with rope, hanged through a tree and then beaten by lathi. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge has rendered his opinion that in such a situation there should have been evidence of co-villagers and there were no such injuries found on the person of Sohan which could have been caused to a person who was tied with rope.
8. With regard to the medical evidence, it is seen that though Dr. Laxmi Prakash (PW-9) stated that he had received 24 injuries on the person of Sohan and one of the injuries was on the temporal region, in absence of any evidence tendered in the Court on the complicity of the accused, Dinesh, the learned trial Court had no option but to record the judgment of acquittal of the accused. Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned trial Court the fact that no evidence has been laid to show that the deceased was tied with a rope to the mango tree and beaten up by the accused, as stated by PW-6 Mukesh, inasmuch as if the deceased had been tied with the rope and then beaten, there would have been ligature marks or abrasions on his body and also, in such circumstance, the deceased's body would have rubbed against the mango tree on account of movements made by him in attempt to escape from the rope, leading to abrasion marks on his back. (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015] However, the same could not be demonstrated by the prosecution, which further weakens the case of prosecution.
9. The evidence gathered from the site of incident, such as Naksha Mauka which indicates that there were no bloodstains found and this does not corroborate with the statement of PW-6 Mukesh. Though PW-8 Mohan Singh has stated that it was raining on the date of incident and, therefore, no bloodstains were found on the place of occurrence but we find that the learned trial Court has rightly noted that when the deceased's body was found the crops were standing intact, which refutes the complete premise of statement given by PW-8 Mohan Singh. This Court also finds that no recovery has been effected at the instance of the accused/respondent.
10. This is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence that the identity of the accused must be established and there should be sufficient evidence on his complicity in the crime. As we have noticed, Mukesh (PW-6), who was projected by the prosecution as eye-witness, was held not reliable and trustworthy and no other evidence was produced by the prosecution to connect the respondent with murder of Sohan.
11. We are also conscious that the power of the High Court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal should be exercised only in cases where it is demonstrated that the trial Court committed such error in law which has occasioned in failure of justice.
12. Having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court which are based on the proper appreciation on the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 13th March 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011. (Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
13. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2015 is dismissed. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 17-/Ravi Khandelwal/-
(Downloaded on 31/01/2025 at 10:44:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)