Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurdial vs State on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-388/1994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 388/1994
Gurdial
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
25/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
This criminal appeal has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that
this appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed and
the conviction and sentence passed against the
appellant by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled
Caste/Schedules Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri
Ganagangar vide his judgment dated 14.07.1994 in
regular criminal case No.14/94 may kindly be set aside."
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident in
question occurred in the spur of moment for the land in question
between the Mani Ram and Ram Pratap when the demarcation
came under question.
The incident happened on 01.01.1993 and it is alleged that
the dispute arose when the partition of fields was being
undertaken by Mani Ram and another party, Ram Pratap &
Gurudial with their wives and son-in-laws came to the spot.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:19:23 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-388/1994]
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
learned trial court, after detailed adjudication, has acquitted four
other persons i.e. Ram Pratap, Ganga Devi, Savitri & Om Prakash
under Sections 148, 323, 302 & 302/149 IPC alongwith SC/ST Act.
The only conviction made was of Gurdial and that too under
Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant has taken to this Court to
the statement of PW-6, who is a Doctor, who stated that the
injuries responsible for causing the death of the victim were of a
blunt nature. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this
Court to the Ex.21 i.e. postmortem report, which also points out
that the cause of death is due to injury to the brain.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
fundamental discrepancy in the conclusion so arrived at, because
the other head injuries were attributed to the other co-accused,
who have already been acquitted and only the appellant has been
convicted stating that he had a Gandasi, whereas the Gandasi is a
sharp edged weapon and that there were no sharp injuries on
the head of the deceased, which could have caused the death.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the petition
by saying that the learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion
that injuries could have been caused by the handle of the Gandasi
and, thus, the possibility of blunt injuries caused by the opposite
part of the Gandasi cannot be ruled out beyond doubt.
This Court after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing
the record of the case is of the opinion that learned trial court has
acquitted the four persons i.e. Ram Pratap, Ganga Devi, Savitri &
Om Prakash, who were shown to be continuously involved in the
alleged crime, and, thus, focussing only on Gurdial, the learned
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:19:23 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-388/1994]
trial court could not separately emphasize upon the conclusion of
Gurdial having been caused the fatal injuries to the deceased,
because a fundamental discrepancy arose in the deposition of the
eye-witnesses read along with doctor's examination and the post-
mortem report, according to which, the cause of death was a blunt
weapon, whereas attribution to the present appellant was that of
a sharp weapon i.e. Gandasi. The possibility of the handle having
been used as stated by learned Public Prosecutor and also as
observed by learned trial court is a mere possibility, however, a
mere possibility cannot be the sole ground for conviction and
unless the court arrives at an independent conclusion by means of
any other kind of evidence, the mere possibility cannot be a sole
ground for making any conviction. The case does not travel
beyond suspicion to confirm the allegations upon the present
appellant.
In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 14.07.1994, passed by
the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sri Ganagangar is quashed and set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against
him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
30-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
