Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Mohan Lal And Ors ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 175/1999
State
----Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal And Ors
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
02/09/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. By way of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State
laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 24.04.1998
passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Cases) & Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner ('Trial
Court'), in Sessions Case No.51/96 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Mohanlal & Ors.), whereby accused-respondent-Mohini was
acquitted of the charge against her under Section 302/109 IPC;
accused-respondents, namely, Bheraram, Mohanlal, Ms. Manju,
Ms. Seema & Ms. Kiran, were acquitted of the charges against
them under Sections 147 & 302 IPC & in alternate, under Section
302/149 IPC.
2. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the State produced before this Court a report dated 23.08.2024
received from the Office of Station House Officer, Police Station,
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
Kotgate, District Bikaner, which reflects that accused-respondent
no.1-Mohan Lal, accused-respondent no.3-Ms.Manju, and
accused-respondent no.5- Smt. Mohini have already expired, and
hence. Thus, now the present appeal may be heard and decided
on qua the surviving accused-respondents Bheraram, Ms.Seema
and Smt. Kiran.
2.1. The aforesaid report dated 23.08.2024 is taken on record. In
light of the above-said report, the present appeal qua the
aforementioned deceased accused-respondents stands abated.
Accordingly, the present adjudication is made only to the extent of
surviving accused-respondents Bheraram, Ms.Seema and Smt.
Kiran.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State submitted that the main role of committing the
crime in question has been attributed to accused-respondent no.3-
Kumari Manju (now deceased).
3.1. It was further submitted that the deceased was burnt by the
accused-respondents and the dying declaration was also recorded
by the concerned Magistrate (PW.2-Rajendra Kumar Sharma), but
the learned Trial Court discarded the said dying declaration and
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, as above.
3.2. It was also submitted that the role and involvement of the
accused-respondents in commission of the crime in question is
clearly corroborated by the testimonies of other prosecution
witnesses, who have completely supported the prosecution story.
It was further submitted that the death in question was caused by
setting the deceased on fire within 10 months of marriage by the
in-laws, and the evidence placed on record clearly proves the
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
prosecution case against the accused-respondents, beyond all
reasonable doubts.
4. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court passed
the impugned judgment of acquittal, while disbelieving the
prosecution story, which in the given circumstances is not justified
in law and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside, while
convicting the surviving accused-respondents under Section 302
IPC.
5. The matter was called twice, but no one appeared on behalf
of the surviving accused-respondents, and therefore, the
arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the appellant-State were heard and the record of the
case was perused.
6. This Court observes that the dying declaration (Ex.P/2) of
the deceased was recorded by PW.2-Rajendra Kumar Sharma
wherein the deceased had clearly stated that the accused-
respondent no.3- Ms.Manju (since deceased) poured the kerosene
oil and burnt the deceased, while the other accused-respondents
caught-hold of her, which shows that the main role in commission
of the crime in question has been attributed to said the deceased
accused-respondent.
7. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that the deceased
sustained burns to the extent of 70-80%, but there is nothing on
record showing any certificate issued by the concerned Doctor, to
the effect that the deceased was in a state of mind, which could
have enabled her to give such dying declaration; the certificate
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
(Ex.P/1) was issued by PW.9- Dr. Manoj at 10 A.M., while the
dying declaration was recorded at 11:30 A.M.
7.1. This Court also observes that in the dying declaration, the
deceased stated that her husband, namely, Rajendra and one
Shukhi were present at the time of incident and her husband came
to save her, but the deceased's husband-Rajendra and Shukhi
were not produced as prosecution witnesses, rather the said
Rajendra was produced as defence witness.
7.2. This Court further observes that as bedhead ticket (Ex.D/8)
was prepared by PW.9-Dr.Manoj and at the time when the
deceased was asked about the incident in question, she stated
that she suffered burns due to blast in stove. This Court also
observes that the said stove was found at the time of preparation
of Naksha Mauka (Ex.P/16) of the place of the incident and the
same was supported by PW.10- Hardeep Singh and PW.4- Shiv
Shankar (brother of deceased), but no investigation was carried
out in regard to the said stove.
7.3. This Court further observes that after the incident in
question, the deceased's family was immediately informed and
PW.4-Shiv Shankar (brother of deceased) and PW-6 Rukma came
at night before recording of the dying declaration. PW.2 stated
that at the time of recording of the dying declaration, 4-5 patients
were in the ward, wherein the deceased was admitted.
8. This Court also observes that there is nothing on record
which could show any motive on part of the surviving accused-
respondents to commit the crime in question. This Court further
observes that PW-6 Rukma (mother of deceased), PW-5 Udaram
(father of deceased) and PW.4- Shiv Shankar (brother of
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
deceased) made improvements in their testimonies before the
learned Trial Court, from the ones that were rendered before the
police, and therefore, such testimonies were suffering material
contradictions.
9. 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):
"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;
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
(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;
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
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record."
10. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed
the impugned judgment of acquittal qua the surviving accused-
respondents under Sections 147 & 302 in alteration 302/149 IPC,
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, particularly as regards
category VI, 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 perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
11. 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, and that a mere possibility
of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment. Thus,
on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
[2024:RJ-JD:37244-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-175/1999]
12. 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.
13. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
13.1. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C., each of the surviving accused-respondents are directed to
furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 surviving 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.
13.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the
learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
71-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
