Sharda Wife Of Late Shri Moolchand vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7924 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 49/2022

Sharda Wife Of Late Shri Moolchand, Resident Of Laxmangarh,
District Sikar (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.     Sajid Ali Son Of Abdul Karim, Resident Of Ward No. 09,
       Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
3.     Mehboob Son Of Mohammad Salim, Resident Of Ward No.
       09, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
4.     Aadil Son Of Liyakat Ali, Resident Of Ward No. 09, Police
       Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Addl. GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

20/12/2022

Heard the parties.

This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated

25.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh,

District-Sikar in Sessions Case (CIS) No.29/2019, whereby,

respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges under

Sections 302/34, 341, 323 and 504 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the deceased-Pramod Darji and

PW.3 were taking intoxicant nearby the referred temple. The

private respondents asked them not to take intoxicant at that

place ever. The respondents started hurling abuses. Thereafter,

(2 of 3) [CRLAD-49/2022]

the respondents No.2 to 4 and 5 to 7 unknown persons started

committing assault by fist and slaps as well as by lathi. The

occurrence took place on 08.06.2017 and the matter was reported

to the Police on 09.06.2017. The Doctor, who examined the

injuries submitted a report, (Exhibit-12) that the injuries found on

the person of the injured were simple in nature. There was no

need for X-ray of the head injury. Evidence further came that the

deceased was moving here and there even after the injuries.

PW.1-brother of the deceased and PW.8 stated that before

11.06.2017, the deceased was not taken before any Doctor for

medical assistance. The deceased was quite well and even

appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate as per evidence of

PW.14. After death on 11.06.2017, the post- mortem was

performed and report is at P.28. The post-mortem report says that

there was fracture in the head and head injury was the cause of

death.

The impugned judgment would reveal that all the

prosecution witnesses of the occurrence turned hostile except

PW.3-Gaurav. PW.3-Gaurav has deposed in general and omnibus

manner that the respondents No.2 to 4 assaulted the deceased

with "Lathi" etc; Head injury was the cause of death.

Learned trial judge was of the view that in absence of

corroboration, the testimony of PW.3-Gaurav cannot be relied

upon as he is not specific as to who had caused the injury on the

head. In absence thereof, conviction under Section 302 IPC with

the aid of Section 34 IPC cannot be recorded specially when there

was no evidence on "prior meeting of mind" to attract Section 34

IPC. The occurrence allegedly took place on sudden fight when the

(3 of 3) [CRLAD-49/2022]

deceased and the informant were taking intoxicant. Being

intoxicated, they quarreled and the incident allegedly took place.

Learned trial judge further noticed that initial injuries on the

deceased were not consistent with the post-mortem report. In the

circumstance, solely on the evidence of PW.3 the conviction

cannot be recorded.

The law is well settled that interference with the judgment of

acquittal is permissible only when the judgment is perverse one

and not for the reason that another view is also possible on the

same evidence.

After hearing of the parties, we are of the considered view

that there is no clinching material to substantiate the submission

that the learned trial judge took a view contrary to the law and

evidences available on the record.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal to admit

for hearing.

The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Sunita/33

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)