Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Vikram Singh (2024:Rj-Jd:37779-Db) on 11 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37779-DB] (1 of 5) [CRLLA-6/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 6/2024
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Gemar Singh, R/o Vasda, Police Station
Abu Road, Dist. Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan for
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, GA cum
AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
11/09/2024
1. This criminal leave to appeal under Section 378 (III) & (I)
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State claiming the
following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this leave to appeal may kindly be accepted and
appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned
judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned trial
court may kindly be quashed and set aside and accused-
respondent may kindly be convicted and sentenced in
accordance with law."
2. The appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment of
acquittal dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi, in Sessions Case
No.07/2022 (CIS NO.24/2020); State of Rajasthan Vs. Vikram
[2024:RJ-JD:37779-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLLA-6/2024]
Singh, whereby the accused respondent was acquitted of the
offences under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are
that a report was lodged on 05.04.2020 alleging that on
04.04.2020 at night about 11.30 P.M., the accused Vikram Singh,
while under the influence of alcohol, tried to stab the mother of
the complainant. When the grandfather intervened to rescue his
daughter-in-law (the complainant's mother), he was stabbed,
resulting in his death.
4. 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
of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act against the accused person,
and the trial commenced accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 11 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 17 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution and 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 considering the material and evidence placed on record,
the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused person, namely,
Vikram Singh, as above, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal
dated 07.02.2023, against which the present leave to appeal has
been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.
[2024:RJ-JD:37779-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLLA-6/2024]
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that there
is a recovery of a bloodstained knife and the blood groups
indicated the involvement of the knife and the clothes of the
accused also had the same blood group as that of the deceased.
He further submits that the learned trial court ought to have
invoked the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to
give credibility to the evidence in question and support the
conviction being sought.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused
respondent while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant-State, contended that the critical evidence of the
complainant, as well as the complainant's mother (who was at the
receiving end of the violence), has not supported the prosecution's
case. He further submitted that Section 106 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1860 could have been invoked only if there were no multiple
persons who had knowledge of or access to the crime scene. He
also submits that there is no evidence, which could connect the
present petitioner.
9. This Court, after going through the record, evidence, as well
as impugned judgment, finds that the prosecution witnesses have
successively turned hostile and have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
10. This Court is conscious of the fact that with no eye-
witnesses, the inference of Section 106 of Evidence Act could have
been narrowed down to the accused only if he had been alone in
the room with the deceased, but it is an admitted case that the
family members, particularly, the complainant, the wife of the
[2024:RJ-JD:37779-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLLA-6/2024]
accused, were present inside the house and thus, implicating the
accused solely on the basis of Section 106 of Evidence Act would
not be appropriate.
11. This Court is further conscious of the fact that though AB
blood group found on the knife and clothes of the accused
matches that of the deceased, but it would not be sufficient alone
to draw an inference that accused was involved because the blood
group evidence is generally considered a broad scientific indicator
and requires substantial corroboration to be used as a basis for
conviction
12. On perusal of Ex.P-33 FSL report, the broader parameter
which comes out is that AB blood group was there on the shirt of
the accused, but this alone would not help in the given factual
matrix to sustain the allegation. Thus, learned the trial court has
rightly arrived at a conclusion of acquittal order.
13. This Court is conscious 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).
13.1. This Court thus 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:37779-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLLA-6/2024]
13.2. In the present case, while being conscious of the scope of
interference, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforementioned judgments, in the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has
arrived at the conclusion of acquittal of the accused-respondent
after taking into due consideration the material and evidence
placed on record before it, which is justified in law. Moreover, the
prosecution has clearly failed to prove its case against the
accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts.
14. Thus, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the
case and also on a perusal of the impugned order, and the other
material available on record, this Court does not find it a fit case
so as to entertain the present criminal leave to appeal.
15. Consequently, the instant criminal leave to appeal is
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
48-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
