Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Ram Ji on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 165/1994
State
----Appellant
Versus
Ram Ji
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
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. The criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant
State, against the judgment, dated 18.12.1993, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (Camp Bhinmal) in Sessions Case
No.28/92, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the
accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 447, 307/34
and 325/323 IPC.
4. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned Public Prosecutor, are that the complainant Kalla Ram
submitted a written report at about 4 p.m. on 19.01.1992 at
Police Station, Bhinmal, stating therein that on the same day, his
wife Chuni was working in his field known as Vira-wala-Bera, at
which time his neighbour accused-Galba came there and began
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:42:06 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-165/1994]
pulling, dragging and assaulting her. And that, when he heard his
wife's cries, he rushed to the spot in an attempt to save her, and
she was saved accordingly. And that, thereafter, Galba's father and
brothers, armed with weapons viz. axe, kudali, and lathis, also
arrived at the spot. And that, Galaba, armed with the blunt end of
the axe infliced a blow on the head of complainant-Kalla Ram, as a
result of which he fell to the ground, whereupon accused-Ramji
inflicted lathi blow upon the complainant.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant- State submits
that on the basis of the aforementioned report, the police
registered a case against the accused-respondents for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 354, and 323 I.P.C.
and during investigation, arrested the accused and recovered the
weapons at their instance. And that, after statements of witnesses
were recorded and medical examination of the injured persons
being conducted, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-
respondents for the offences under Sections 447, 325, 323 and
307 I.P.C. before the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bhinmal, from where, owing to the nature of the alleged offences,
the case was committed for trial to the learned Sessions Judge,
Jalore (Camp Bhinmal) ('trial court'), who vide the impugned
judgment acquitted the accused-respondents of all the charges
levelled against them. And that, furthermore, the parties were
already embroiled in previous litigation.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State further
submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the
impugned judgment and has failed to take into due consideration
the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:42:06 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-165/1994]
6.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits, that despite
production of eye witnesses, and the medical evidence i.e. Ex.P/1
to Ex.P/22, the learned trial court has proceeded to acquit the
accused-respondents in an errant manner.
6.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned
trial court ought to have convicted the accused-respondents, and
that in their testimony, Dr. C.B. Mathur, P.W. 9 and Dr. Pramod
Kumar Saxena, P.W. 10 clearly stated that the injured received
head injuries and that his finger was broken, as a result of the
incident in question.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-
respondents opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that
the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences placed
on record before it, before passing the impugned judgment of
acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents.
7.1. Learned counsel further submits that the incident in question
occurred because, they were in fact digging the land for irrigating
their fields, and the scuffle occurred in the heat of the moment,
when the parties herein disagreed. And that, furthermore, the
place of the incident in question was not, as contended by the
prosecution.
7.2. Learned counsel further submits that the irrigation drain
(bel) so created was destroyed as a result of the scuffle, and this
indicates that the incident in question occurred as a result of the
disagreement between the parties herein over the said drain, and
not as the prosecution contends, that the accused-respondents,
followed the wife of the complainant, Kalla Ram in his absence.
7.3. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the
testimony of P.W.2 Kalla Ram i.e. the complainant, itself reveals
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:42:06 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-165/1994]
that the injury on the chest of the accused, was caused due to a
fall in the well about 12 months prior to the incident in question.
8. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the
record of the case.
9. This Court finds that the learned trial court, while passing
the impugned judgment, has clearly recorded, after a thorough
perusal of the record, that the incident in question occurred as a
result of the disagreement and animosity between the concerned
parties, due to the establishment of the drain on the adjoining
fields of both the parties.
9.1 The learned trial court has also found that the incident in
question was in fact, a free fight which took place in the spur of
the moment, and that both sides suffered injuries, some of which
may be attributed to acts in self defence. And that, this created
doubt in the mind of the Court.
9.2 The learned trial court also recorded a finding that the
witnesses produced in support of the prosecution case, were all
family members of the complainant and that there were no
independent witnesses to corroborate the version of the
prosecution.
9.3. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from
any legal infirmity, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
10. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below
be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
44-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
