State vs Kirpa Ram And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7586 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 584/1999

State

----Appellant Versus Kirpa Ram And Ors

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.L. Motsra

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

20/05/2022

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

State against the judgment dated 25.05.1999 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur ('trial court') in Case

No.154/94, whereby the present accused-respondents were

acquitted of the offences under Sections 447, 427, 323, 325,

323/34 & 325/34 IPC.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State submits that an FIR bearing No.134/93 was

lodged by one Devi Singh (complainant), alleging therein that on

12.10.1993, at about 09:00 p.m., while the complainant and his

family were sleeping after having dinner, on that day, at about

12:00-01:00 in the night, 10-12 persons came on two tractors

and started throwing stones and shouted, while using abusive

language and telling the complainant and his family to leave the

place (house), otherwise, they would be killed; those persons

included the present accused-respondents also.

(2 of 6) [CRLA-584/1999]

2.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that following the

aforementioned assault, the complainant and his family entered

the 'Padawa' (Kachcha house), whereupon the accused persons hit

the Padawa with tractor; as the Padawa was to fell, the

complainant and his family run to save themselves, but the

accused persons tried to run the tractor over the wife of the

complainant; during the course of which his child fell and his wife

became unconscious; his wife also lost the child which she was

carrying in her womb during pregnancy; upon hearing the hue and

cry, some villagers came to the rescue of the complainant and his

family, whereupon the accused persons ran away by driving one

tractor, while the other tractor jammed in the Padawa.

2.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged

incident happened on count of some land dispute, as was pending

between parties.

2.3 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that thereafter, an

FIR was registered against the accused persons and the

complainant's injured wife was examined by the doctor, while the

investigation already commenced.

2.4 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after

investigation into the FIR, a charge-sheet under Sections 427,

447, 323, 325 & 307 IPC before the competent court; wherefrom

upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned trial

court. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that vide order

dated 23.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge

No.2, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307

IPC, but the trial was ordered in relation to the remaining

offences; upon the said charges being denied by the accused-

respondents, they were made to stand the trial.

                                               (3 of 6)                       [CRLA-584/1999]



2.5     Learned     Public        Prosecutor          also      submits           that    that

aforementioned factual matrix, being supported by the disclosures

and evidence in the record of the case, clearly reveals that owing

to some land dispute between the parties, the gruesome act in

question has been committed by the accused-respondents; this is

more so, when the complainant was the lawful owner of the land

in dispute and the accused-Kirparam wants to oust the

complainant from the said land, by adopting unlawful means and

committing unlawful act in question.

2.6 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the gruesome

act on the part of the accused-respondent is also substantiated by

the fact that due to the tractor being driven over the legs of the

complainant's wife, she sustained simple as well as grievous

injuries, including 3-4 fractures, coupled with miscarriage of the

child in her womb.

2.7 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the

aforementioned factual matrix and the evidence placed on record

before the learned trial court by the prosecution, which sufficiently

and substantially proved the prosecution case against the

accused-respondents, were amply sufficient for the learned trial

court to convict and sentence the accused-respondent,

appropriately. However, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the

learned trial court without taking into consideration the overall

facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating

the evidence placed on record before it, acquitted the accused-

respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.05.1999, of

the charges levelled against them, and thus, the said judgment is

not sustainable in the eye of law, and deserves to be quashed and

set aside by this Court.

(4 of 6) [CRLA-584/1999]

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-

respondents submits that there are cross criminal cases between

the parties, apart from a litigation, pertaining to a land dispute,

pending between them.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the present

complainant-Devi Singh was the aggressor party, and thus,

instead of the accused-respondents, the complainant alone ought

to be arrayed as the accused-respondents.

3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the record clearly reveals

that the present criminal proceeding has been launched by the

complainant against the accused-respondents just to falsely

implicated them so as to enable the complainant to settle the

personal scores with the accused-respondents, and thus, the

present criminal proceeding is nothing but a gross abuse of the

process of law; the same is clearly detrimental to the prosecution

case.

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the factum of the

complainant being the real and the sole aggressor is further

substantiated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in

the cross case lodged against the complainant himself; the

witnesses in the said case makes it amply clear that the accused-

Poonaram in fact sustained various grievous injuries and the

injuries dangerous to life, at the hands of the complainant himself

and his other companions; the same is clearly substantiated by

the medical evidence placed on record in the record of the cross

case; thus, as per learned counsel such factual matrix strikes at

the substratum of the prosecution case against the present

accused respondents.

(5 of 6) [CRLA-584/1999]

3.4 Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court has

passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after taking into due

consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

upon duly appreciating the complete evidence placed on record

before it, more particularly, when the prosecution has completely

failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondents.

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

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

trial court, before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in

favour of the accused-respondents, has made due analysis of the

overall facts and circumstances of the case as also duly weighed

the evidence placed on record before it, pertaining to the present

case against the respondents, vis-a-vis, the evidence placed by

the accused-respondents in the cross-case against the

complainant.

5. This Court finds that the learned trial court, after giving a

thoughtful and due consideration to the factual and legal matrix of

the case, rightly opined that both the parties have not led correct

and substantial evidence in the present case as well as the cross-

case to prove the case against the accused-concerned; the same

clearly point towards false implication of the accused concerned in

the case.

6. This Court further finds that the cross criminal cases as

launched by the accused-respondents and the complainant are

nothing but a methodology devised to settle personal scores

between them, owing to the pending lis pertaining to a land

dispute; therefore, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-

respondents as well as the complainant in the present case as well

as the cross case, of the charges levelled against them.

(6 of 6) [CRLA-584/1999]

7. This Court also finds that the common judgment of acquittal,

both in the present case as well as the cross case, as passed by

the learned trial court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

8. In view of the above, this Court does not find a case to be

made out so as to warrant any interference in the well reasoned

speaking judgment dated 25.05.1999 passed by the learned trial

court in favour of the accused-respondents.

9. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellant-State

is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed. Record

of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

35-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)