Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Sukhdev Ram And Anr ... on 11 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 478/1999
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sukhdev Ram Son of Gangaram, resident of Nimbari, Police
Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Bhanwarlal Son of Sukhdeo Ram, resident of Nimbari,
Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Bhagirath Singh son of Girdhari Ram, resident of Palada,
Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Sanjay Rewar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
11/09/2024
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laid a challenge
to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.01.1999, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge Parbatsar in Sessions Case
No.4/1998 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sukhdevram & Ors), whereby
the accused respondents were acquitted for the offence under
Sections 302 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1986 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1999.
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (2 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
3. At the outset, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Sanjay Rewar, appearing on behalf of the accused-
respondents, submits that accused-respondent no.1-Sukhdev and
accused-respondent no.2-Bhanwarlal had already expired.
3.1. In this view of the matter, the instant appeal qua deceased
accused-respondent No.1-Sukhdev and deceased accused-
respondent No.2-Bhanwarlal stands abated. Thus, now this appeal
is surviving only qua accused-respondent No.3-Bhagirath, and the
same is adjudicated only to the extent of the surviving accused-
respondent-Bhagirath.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the
learned GA-cum-AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant-State,
are that the incident which is of intervening night of 23 & 24
September, 1986 at around 1:00 - 2:00 am whereby it was
reported that at Bhoja Nimbari Kalan deceased Premaram was
murdered in the open yard of his residence.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was
registered and the investigation accordingly commenced. After
investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 302
& 120-B IPC against the accused persons, and the trial
commenced accordingly.
6. During the course of the trial, the evidence of sixteen
prosecution witnesses were recorded and eighteen documents
were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereafter, the
accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which the accused respondents pleaded innocence and their false
implication in the criminal case in question.
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (3 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
7. 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 dated 16.01.1999, against which the
present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-
State.
8. Learned GA-cum-AAG for the appellant-state submits that
prosecution witness PW-9 Mohan has sufficiently supported the
case of the prosecution as he has deposed that while sleeping in
the house adjoining to the place of incident, he heard a gun shot
at about 2 am, to which he got up and saw that Bhawra Ram and
Khiw Singh were running away from the spot and that Bhawra
Ram was carrying a gun. He also saw that Bhawra Ram and Khiw
Singh thereafter went to the home of Sukhdevram (Sarpanch).
8.1. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that there was no eye
witness of the incident except PW-9 Mohan but he fairly submits
that Mohan has rendered the incidence after one month of the
incidence because he claimed that he was afraid of Sukhdevram
and thus, did not make timely disclosure of the incident.
8.2. Learned GA-cum-AAG also submits that PW-9 Mohan has
valid reason to make a subsequent disclosure as it was only after
a Panchayat meeting that he gathered strength and courage to
make the statement and since the incident pertains to the accused
persons running away from the place of incident after shooting,
therefore, he becomes a crucial evidence sufficient to make
conviction.
8.3. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that the incident took
place at the home of the deceased and thus, since it is bereft of
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (4 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
direct public involvement therefore, very wide expansion of
evidence is not possible. He also submits the medical evidence
indicates that 21 pallets out of the bullet were found on the head
of the deceased which resulted in head injury causing death of
deceased Premaram.
8.4. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that it was also under
consideration by the learned trial Court that the gun shot injury
was given from a very near distance which was hardly about 2 to
3 inches and thus, the injury caused the death which was also
supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer.
8.5. Learned GA-cum-AAG also submits that the animosity
between the parties was writ large and the Panchayat witnesses
have attributed that there was a clear motive behind the crime in
question as Sukhdevram was having animosity with deceased
Premaram and even his own son Bhanwarlal and another person
Bhagirath Singh for the crime in question.
9. On the other hand learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State and submits
that since there are no eye witnesses to the case, the only
relevant part would be PW-9 Mohan and the disclosure made by
the PW-9 Mohan at belated stage of one month due to some kind
of pressure of Panchayat which was held and thus, there are no
credible witnesses to support the actual incident.
9.1 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent
beyond all reasonable doubts, and thus, the well reasoned
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (5 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
11. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation
against the accused-respondent is that he committed the murder
of the deceased, whereas during trial the said allegation against
the accused-respondent was found to be false, and thus, vide the
impugned judgment, the accused-respondent was acquitted of the
offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.
12. This Court further observes that the prosecution, in support
of its case, mainly relied upon the testimony of PW.9 Mohan, who
has produced as eyewitness during the trial, and this Court finds
that the said witnesses visited the place of incident on the next
day and also he remained present during the last rites of the
deceased at his house, but the information of the said incident
was given by the said witnesses after one month of the incident in
question during certain meeting, wherein he has stated about the
incident in question; in the given circumstances, the testimony of
the said witness casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution story.
13. 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:37808-DB] (6 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
"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;
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (7 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
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."
14. This Court also observes that the there are many
contradictions as well as doubts in the evidence produced by the
prosecution, and that, the testimony of PW.9 Mohan, who has
produced as a sole eyewitness during the trial, as mentioned
above, was very doubtful and thus, there was no eyewitness of
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (8 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
the incident in question, and the testimonies of the other
witnesses PW.4 & PW.6 are having major contradictions, thus,
sufficiently broke the entire chain of evidence in the present case.
This Court observe that even the circumstantial and corroborative
evidence in the case, on conjoint consideration of the testimony of
PW-9 Mohan, the testimony of PW-4 Bhuraram and PW-6
Rugharam and also from Postmortem report (Ex.-P/18) as well as
the testimony of the Investigating Officer does not induce
confidence of this Court to deviate from the conclusion arrived at
by the learned trial Court. The witness of PW-9 Mohan is not trust
worthy due to the delay in making his disclosure statement.
Moreover, he has not seen the actual incident and has just seen
the accused Bhanwarlal and Bhagirath Singh were running away
from the place of incident.
15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the learned trial Court
has rightly arrived at a conclusion whereby benefit of doubt has
been given to the accused-respondents.
16. This Court further observes that the learned trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondent under Sections 302 & 120-B 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:37808-DB] (9 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
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.
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 judgment, 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. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the
accused-respondent No.3 Bhagirath Singh 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 he
would be called upon to do so.
[2024:RJ-JD:37808-DB] (10 of 10) [CRLA-478/1999]
21. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the
learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
68-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
