Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Madan Lal (2024:Rj-Jd:42261-Db) on 17 October, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 43/1997
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Madan Lal S/o Dhanna Ram,
2. Mangi Lal S/o Dhanna Ram,
Both are R/o village Kothar, P.S. Nana, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Jasol
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
17/10/2024
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a
challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 09.05.1996, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District - Pali in
Sessions Case No.17/1995, whereby the accused-respondents
were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on
17.02.1995 and the present appeal has been pending since the
year 1995.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by
Mr. Sameer Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the appellant-State are that on 17.02.1995, in the evening at
about 08:00 p.m. in village Kothar, Bhaga Ram was attacked by
the present accused-respondents Mangi Lal and Madan Lal with an
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:27:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
axe and knife and that injuries were caused on his neck, chest and
rest of the body parts, which were dangerous to life and due to
the said injuries, he passed away. It was reported that Smt.
Rambha Devi, mother of the deceased and Smt. Sukhi, wife of the
deceased saw the incident and they stated that the injuries were
caused by the accused-respondents.
4. On the basis of the information (Ex.P/15) given by PW
Smt. Rambha Devi, mother of the deceased, an FIR bearing
No.10/1995 was lodged at P.S. Nana, District - Pali. After
completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet
against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial commenced
accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 18 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 30 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution and two defence documents were
exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondents. The accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal
case in question.
6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties
as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on
record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-
respondents, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
09.05.1996, against which the present appeal has been preferred
on behalf of the appellant-State.
7. Mr. Sameer Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the appellant-State submits that out of the 18 witnesses
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:27:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
examined by the prosecution, the core witnesses are PW-7 - Smt.
Sukhi (wife of the deceased) and PW-11 - Smt. Rambha Devi
(mother of the deceased) who were examined as the eye
witnesses in the present case. It is further submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor that both wife and mother of the
deceased had rushed to the spot after they were informed by
Panna Lal but the said Panna Lal has never been examined by the
prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that other
witnesses who are crucial to the case namely, PW-3 - Ramesh
Kumar, PW-4 - Kapoora Ram and PW-5 - Bheema Ram turned
hostile and did not support the prosecution story.
7.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that though the
Doctor who conducted the postmortem has not been examined
and that there are other discrepancies but still there is a strong
evidence of eye witnesses which have supported the case and
there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. Learned Public
Prosecutor has taken this Court to the cross-examination of PW-7
- Smt. Sukhi (wife of the deceased) and PW-11 - Smt. Rambha
Devi (mother of the deceased), both the eye witnesses in their
evidence stated that Panna Lal came to their house and told them
that Mangi Lal (deceased) was being beaten and when they
rushed to the spot, they found that the accused-respondent
Madan Lal was stabbing the deceased with knife and that the
other accused-respondent Mangi Lal was also hitting him. Both the
witnesses have deposed that they made hue and cry upon which
Bheema, Ramesh and Kapoora rushed to the spot.
7.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that once there
are two eye witnesses who are supporting the case of the
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:27:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
prosecution in the said case, despite that the learned Trial Court
has not appreciated their evidence in true perspective and wrongly
arrived at a conclusion of acquittal of the accused-respondents.
8. On the other hand Mr. D.S. Jasol, learned counsel appearing
for the accused-respondents while opposing the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the core case of the
prosecution rests upon the statements of the two eye witnesses
i.e PW-7 - Smt. Sukhi and PW-11 - Smt. Rambha Devi.
8.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents drew attention
of this Court towards the cross-examination of both these
witnesses. The cross-examination of PW-7 reflects that she
deposed that she could not rush to the spot as she was pregnant
and her mother-in-law was also having a weak eye-sight. She
further deposed in her cross-examination that before they reached
the spot, the accused-respondents Madan Lal and Mangi Lal had
already run away. The relevant portion of her cross-examination is
reproduced as under:-
"eSa nkSM+dj ugha x;h Fkh cPpk D;ksafd esjs isV esa Fkk eSa xHkZorh Fkh]
esjh lklw dks de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA gekjs tkus ls igys enuyky o
ekaxhyky Hkkx dj pys x;s FksA eSaus esjs ?kj ls gh ns[kk fd eqyfteku
Hkkx jgs gSaA esjs gkFk esa csVjh FkhA ckgj va/ksjk Fkk blfy;s esjs gkFk esa
csVjh Fkh eSaus rks csVjh ls gh ns[kk FkkA"
8.2 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has further
taken this Court to the cross-examination of PW-11 who has
deposed in her statement that it was a dark night. She further
deposed that she cannot see in the night and she can see in the
day light only. She further deposed that this condition of her weak
eye-sight has been existing for the last 5 years. In cross-
(Downloaded on 22/10/2024 at 09:27:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
examination she has not specifically pointed out her presence at
the site also which is reproduced as under:-
"pkSjkgs ij ykbZV ugha Fkh tgka Hkxkjke dh yk"k iM+h Fkh ogka ij
ykbZV ugha FkhA ge va/ksjs esa gh ogka x;s FksA eq>s de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA
eq>s jkr esa de fn[kk;h nsrk gS fnu esa fn[kk;h nsrk gSA ml jkr dks
Hkh eq>s de fn[kk;h fn;k FkkA eq>s 5 o'kksZa ls de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ;g lgh gS
fd lq[kh eq>s ?kVuk LFky ij gkFk idM+ dj ys x;h FkhA eSa nkSM+dj
ekSds ij ugha x;h Fkh /khjs&/khjs x;h FkhA"
8.3 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents also drew
attention of this Court to the cross-examination of PW-11 Smt.
Rambha Devi in which she has stated that Panna Lal usually did
not come to her house and once a fight took place between Bhaga
Ram and Panna Lal in which Bhaga Ram had hit Panna Lal with
lathi blow. The above deposition of PW-11 during her cross-
examination brings said Panna Lal under the doubt for commission
of the crime in question.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as
perused the material available on record.
10. This Court after examining the peculiar factual matrix and
testimonies of 18 prosecution witnesses and after seeing 30
Exhibits, finds that the prosecution could not prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts.
11. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly
arrived at the conclusion of acquittal of both the accused-
respondents because the whole prosecution case rests upon the
testimonies of PW-7 and PW-11, who are the wife and mother of
the deceased, respectively.
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
12. This Court further observes that PW-7- Smt. Sukhi (wife of
the deceased) in her cross-examination has specifically stated that
the incident took place late at night and that she had a torch. She
further stated that she was pregnant and her mother-in-law had a
weak eye-sight and could not see at night and thus, they were
going slow to the said place of incidence. She has also stated that
before they reached to the spot, the accused-respondents had
already run away from there.
13. This Court also observes that PW-11 - Smt. Rambha Devi
(mother of the deceased) has stated that she had a weak eye-
sight from the last 5 years and could not see at night and the
place of incident was fully dark. The learned Trial Court has noted
the collapse of the two eye witnesses and the fact of turning
hostile of three crucial witnesses i.e. PW-3 - Ramesh Kumar, PW-4
- Kapoora Ram and PW-5 - Bheema Ram, is also a key element
in the judgment arrived at by the Trial Court.
14. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
though has deprecated the conduct of the prosecution but at the
same time did not find any material to find the allegations to be
true against the present accused-respondents.
15. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on
12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors.
Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010,
decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-:
Mallappa & Ors. (Supra):
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially
based on the promise that no innocent shall be
condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the
jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The
principles which come into play while deciding
an appeal from acquittal could be summarized
as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element
of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be
comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or
documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence
may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in
itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence,
finds that two views are possible, the one in
favour of the accused shall ordinarily be
followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally
plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary
view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse
the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of
evidence, it must specifically address all the
reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal
and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to
conviction, the appellate Court must
demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of
law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):
"38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC
581 this Court summarized the principles
governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating
the evidence, is required to consider
whether the view taken by the trial court is
a possible view which could have been taken
on the basis of the evidence on record;
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible."
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the
scope of interference by an appellate Court for
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court in favour of the accused has to
be exercised within the four corners of the
following principles: (a) That the judgment of
acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b)
That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable
views are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record."
16. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law,
because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect
that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the
Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity
or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the
present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned
judgment had examined each and every witness at a considerable
length and duly analysed the documents produced before it,
coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary
evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference
by this Court in the instant appeal.
17. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the
acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited,
and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court
demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a
contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, and
thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
18. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the
aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit
case warranting any interference by this Court.
19. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
20. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-
A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, the accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal
bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond each in the
like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made
effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event
of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for
grant of leave, the accused-respondents, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as
they would be called upon to do so.
[2024:RJ-JD:42261-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-43/1997]
21. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
32-Ramesh/PoonamS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
