State vs Sohan Lal (2023/Rjjd/004325)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1480 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004325]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 606/2013

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus Sohan Lal S/o. Shri Chhagaram B/c Nayak, R/o. Karmawas Patta, P.S. Bagdinagar, District Pali, Rajasthan.

                                                         ----Accused-Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Mohd. Javed Gouri, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. D. S. Udawat



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                        Order

07/02/2023

The present criminal appeal has been filed against the order

dated 09.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sojat, whereby, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the

charges under Sections 307 & 323 I.P.C. and Sections 146/196,

93/197 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The State-appellant has preferred the present appeal on the

ground that learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the

facts and evidence on record, and, therefore, committed an error

while acquitting the respondent vide order dated 09.04.2013.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the

statements of the injured- Bhanwari Devi (PW-8) and her

daughter- Geeta(PW-4) have not appreciated in correct

perspective. He further submits that even the site plan prepared

by the Police as well as other documents placed on record, clearly

goes to show that the respondent tried to cause fatal injuries to

[2023/RJJD/004325] (2 of 3) [CRLA-606/2013]

Bhanwari Devi and, therefore, it was a fit case, whereby the

respondent should have been convicted under Sections 307 and

323 of the I.P.C.

Learned Public Prosecutor has taken this Court to the

statement recorded before the trial Court and has tried to submit

that in view of the testimony of the witnesses, the order of

acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is on the face of it

incorrect and is liable to be set-aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the trial Court rightly appreciated the facts and evidence adduced

before the trial Court and has recorded the order of acquittal

against the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent

further submits that there is a material contradiction in the

statements of injured- Bhanwari Devi(PW-8) and her daughter-

Geeta(PW-4). He also submits that the statements of Bhanwari

Devi are not got corroborated from the statement of the Dr. B. S.

Khatri (PW-7) and the injury report placed on record. Learned

counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial Court

while recording the order of acquittal vide judgment dated

09.04.2013 adduced and evaluating the evidence in correct

perspective and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this

Court.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the judgment dated 09.04.2013 as well as other relevant

record of the case.

The statement of Bhanwari Devi (PW-8) clearly goes to show

that the respondent followed them on tractor and tried to cause

fatal injuries. The place where the incident is stated to have

[2023/RJJD/004325] (3 of 3) [CRLA-606/2013]

occurred, as per the statement of Bhanwari Devi(PW-8) shows

that the road is 20 feet wide, whereas, as per the statement of

Geeta(PW-4) who is said to have accompanied her mother-

Bhanwari Devi(PW-8) shows that at the place of incident merely a

tractor can turn. Further, the manner in which the incident is

stated to have taken place, it does not corroborate the injuries

which were caused to PW-8 (Bhanwari Devi). The discussions

made by the learned trial Court in the opinion of this Court does

not call for any interference more so when the injuries suffered by

the PW-8 are very simple and as per the statement of the Dr. B.S.

Khatri (PW-7) the injuries sustained by Bhanwari Devi (PW-8) are

mere scratch that too magnitude of a pin head. Therefore, taking

into consideration the statement of Bhanwari Devi (PW-8),

Geeta(PW-4), Dr. B. S. Khatri (PW-7) and the injury report, this

court is of the view that the evidence brought against the

respondent is not sufficient to sustain the allegations leveled and,

therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the

conclusion that the allegations are not sustainable and the

respondent was acquitted of the charges leveled in the present

case.

In view of the discussions made above, no interference is

warranted in the present appeal and the appeal is devoid of force

and the same is hereby dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 24-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)