Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Chhotu (2024:Rj-Jd:37258-Db) on 9 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255/1998
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Chhotu S/o Shri Onkar Gurjar, R/o Thala, Police Station
Shakkargarh, District Bhilwara.
----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
09/09/2024
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant-State laying challenge to the judgment
of acquittal dated 12.07.1997, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara Camp - Shahpura in Sessions Case
No.3/1995 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhotu), whereby the accused
respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on
17.09.1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the
year 1998.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the
learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-
State, are that on 17.09.1994, Rati Ram and deceased Ram Lal
who were grazing their cattle towards Bhandariyan Wala Well, took
turns to sleep. While Ram Lal was looking after the sheep, Rati
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
Ram was sleeping for the first part of the night. In the second
part of the night, Ram Lal slept and Rati Ram looked after the
sheep. In the midnight, it is alleged, that the accused-respondent
Chhotu came there and while Rati Ram hide behind the bushes
and remain accompanied, he gave an axe blow to the Ram Lal
who was his nephew.
4. The dead body of the Ram Lal was recovered and the FIR
was lodged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the
investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed the
charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused-
respondent, and the trial commenced accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 23 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 40 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution and 5 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the accused-respondent; whereafter, the accused-
respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the
accused-respondent pleaded innocence and his 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-respondent,
vide the impugned judgment dated 12.07.1997, against which the
present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-
State.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State
fairly submits that Rati Ram was not examined, thus, casting a
basic doubt upon the prosecution witnesses because he was the
only eye-witness and could have provided valuable evidence.
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
Learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that there is a
recovery of Dhoti and an axe, at the instance of the accused
though he admits that there is no other witness. He has also
drawn the attention of this Court towards the statements of P.W.9
- Madu (the mother of the deceased) who submitted that she does
not know about any previous animosity, though the deceased is
the real brother-in-law. She also does not suspect anyone.
Although she says that there is a previous animosity between Uda,
Harla, Prabhu and Nanda.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has also shown the statement of
P.W.12- Jagdish who is the brother of Ram Lal who has
mentioned about the dispute between Ram Lal and Chhotu
regarding the grazing of the cattle.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State as well as
perused the material available on record.
10. This Court has also taken note of the statement of P.W.1 -
Mangi, who is the wife of the deceased and who has not stated
anything which is relevant to support the prosecution story. The
postmortem report indicates death by an axe blow.
11. The learned trial Court has examined all the witnesses and
exhibits. The trial Court has opined that after perusal of the
evidence, it did not find any connecting evidence against the
present accused with the crime. Ram Lal (the deceased) was last
seen with Rati Ram. The learned trial Court has observed that the
prosecution has miserably failed in its case because Rati Ram has
not been examined even when he was the only eye-witness to the
whole incident.
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
11.1. The learned trial Court also observed that P.W. 12 Jagdish,
in his statement, has stated that there was an altercation between
the deceased Ram Lal and the accused Chhotu regarding the
grazing of cattle, but at the same time there is no corresponding
evidence that any kind of damage to the field of accused-
respondent Chhotu was caused by Ram Lal. It was also observed
by the learned trial Court that no witness/evidence indicates any
kind of damage which could have provoked the accused Chhotu to
cause the act in question.
11.2. The learned trial Court has also taken into account the
statement of P.W.11 - Surajmal who has not corroborated the
differences between Chhotu and Ram Lal. It was further observed
in Para 55 of the judgment that only evidence was one Dhoti and
one axe which have been recovered and one set of Juti which was
sent to FSL for examination, but the FSL report indicated human
blood on axe, Dhoti and Juti. The learned trial Court has also
observed that the recovery is from an open place where anybody
could approach and hide the axe. Thus, it cannot be said to be in
exclusive domain of the accused-respondent - Chhotu.
11.3. The learned trial Court has further discussed, the conduct of
the accused respondent- Chhotu that after the incident he was
available with the family members and was crying while seeing the
dead body of his nephew - Ram Lal which was not a conduct
appropriate to a person who has caused the death in question.
11.4. The learned trial Court has also observed that the accused
Chhotu did not make any efforts to conceal himself or to abscond
from the scene of crime. It was further observed that the recovery
was made after 9 days of the incident which was sufficient time for
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
the accused to have destroyed the evidence in question in case it
was his intention.
12. 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;
(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
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
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
with the guilt of the accused is possible from
the evidence available on record."
13. In view of the aforesaid precedent law, this Court finds that
in the present case, the sole eyewitness i.e. Rati Ram to the
incident in question was not produced during the trial; the
recovery of the Axe (weapon) was made after nine days of the
incident in question from an open place and; no evidence was
placed on record before the learned Trial Court, which could, in
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
any way, establish the prosecution case regarding prior enmity
between the deceased and the accused-respondent.
14. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment of the
learned trial Court and find that the reason arrived at by the
learned trial Court for the acquittal does not call for any
interference from this Court as the flow of the judgment does not
indicate any kind of deviation from the facts or the evidence which
has been adduced.
15. This Court should ordinarily not interfere with the judgment
of the learned trial Court unless there are grave reason for such
interference.
16. This Court also notes that there is no incriminating evidence
connecting the accused-respondent with the crime in question.
The mere presence of the accused at the site or the differences
between the accused and the deceased unless acted upon would
not bring him in the purview of conviction or absolute making out
of the crime.
17. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondent under Section 302 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, 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
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
and every witnesses 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.
18. 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 judgment, and
thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no
interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
19. 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.
20. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
21. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the
accused-respondent is directed to furnish a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond 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-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as she would be called upon
to do so.
[2024:RJ-JD:37258-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-255/1998]
22. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
60-Ravi Khandelwal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
