State vs Mana Ram And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3576 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1084/2017

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Mana Ram Son Of Deepa, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Palasiya Kalla.

2. Smt. Manju Wife Of Shri Mana Ram, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Palasiya Kalla.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1376/2017 State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Jaswant Singh S/o Vagtawar Singh

2. Madhu Singh S/o Vagtawar Singh

3. Sohan Singh S/o Vagtawar Singh

4. Ganpat Singh S/o Shivkumar, All B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Palasiya Kalla, P.s. And Tehsil Ahor, Distt. Jalore.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. N.S. Bhati, PP
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Umesh Shrimali
                               Mr. N.A. Rajpurohit

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

08/03/2022

1. In the 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 the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

(2 of 4) [CRLA-1084/2017]

2. Above-numbered criminal appeal No.1084/2017 has been

preferred against the judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No.76/2011,

acquitting the respondents for the offence under Sections 323,

324 & 325/34 IPC.

2.1 Above-numbered criminal appeal No.1376/2017 has been

preferred against the judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by the

learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,

Jalore in Special Sessions Case No.06/2011, acquitting the

respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 323 or 323/34,

325 or 325/34, 307 or 307/34, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and

3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State (Criminal Appeal No.1084/2017) submits that the

learned courts below passed the impugned orders of acquittal, on

the basis, amongst others, of the cross case between the parties,

followed by challan having been filed, despite the fact that a bare

perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that the respondents were the

aggressors in the alleged incident. As per the learned Public

Prosecutor, the same has been corroborated by the deposition

made by the prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State (Criminal

Appeal No.1376/2017) submits that the record of the case clearly

reveals that the respondents were having animosity with the

injured party, as the respondents were trying to grab the plot of

the complainant party, and the respondents in that process, also

hurled caste based abuses against the complainant.

(3 of 4) [CRLA-1084/2017]

5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State in both the

appeals, further submits that the despite sufficient evidence

available on the record before the learned courts below, including

the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the learned courts

below, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case

beyond doubt, acquitted the respondents, while giving them the

benefit of doubt.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State thus

submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned courts

below, in the aforesaid backdrop, were lacking cogent reasoning

and finding, and therefore, the same deserve interference of this

Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the aforesaid

submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned

courts below disbelieved the story of the prosecution beyond

doubt, while assigning proper reasons and findings therefor;

including that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond doubt, by

adducing proper evidence as to which party were the aggressors

in the alleged incident, inconsistencies in the depositions made by

the prosecution witnesses and the contrary medical evidence.

Moreover, the factum of cross case between the parties is also

discernible from the record, which further strengthens the finding

of the learned courts below regarding failure of the prosecution to

prove as to who were the aggressors in the present case. Thus, in

the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or perversity in the

(4 of 4) [CRLA-1084/2017]

impugned orders passed by the learned courts below, particularly

when the same were passed while assigning cogent reasons and

findings, after duly appreciating the material available on record.

9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason so

as to make any interference in the well reasoned and considered

orders passed by the learned courts below.

10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below

be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHAT),J 67-68-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)