Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Angrey Singh on 12 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 98/1995
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Angrey Singh
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 04/09/2024
Pronounced on 12/09/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
State claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the leave to
appeal in the present matter may kindly be granted and
entertained and accepted the appeal. It is further prayed
that the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raisinghnagar dated 28.10.1992 may kindly be set aside
and the accused respondent be convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under section 302 I.P.C."
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1995.
3. The appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment dated
28.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case No.31/91 (State of
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (2 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
Rajasthan Vs. Angreysingh), whereby the present accused-
respondent Angrej Singh has been acquitted of the charge under
Section 302 IPC.
4. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, at around
eight kilometres away from the Police Station, Vijay Nagar, there
existed a Chak namely, 3 BL, where Choto (wife of the accused-
respondent) was residing, due to uncordial relationship between
the accused-respondent and his said wife, and therefore, the
accused-respondent by establishing a Dhani in his field, was
residing with his second wife.
4.1. As per prosecution, the incident had happened on
20.06.1991. On that date, at around 1:00 pm, the father (Karnail
Singh) of the first wife (Choto) of the accused-respondent
submitted a report that in his and in the presence of one Jangeer
Singh, the accused-respondent, at around 10:00 a.m., inflicted 5-
6 blows by Kassi on the head of Choto (first wife of accused-
respondent) and also inflicted a blow on her neck by the said
weapon, as a result whereof, Choto fell on the ground. At the
relevant time, Karnail Singh (father of Choto) alongwith the said
Jangeer Singh were present at the place of incident, as they
wished to bring Choto to his paternal home, while the accused-
appellant did not let them do so.
4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the then SHO
Kailash Chandra Meena of the concerned Police Station, reached
the place of incident in question, alongwith a Doctor and a
Photographer, whereafter, the panchnama laash of deceased-
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (3 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
Choto was conducted and the dead body was inspected, as well as
photographs of the dead body were clicked.
4.3. Upon such report, a case was registered and the police
started the investigation. Only during the course of investigation,
it was revealed that at the relevant time, the deceased's 16 years
daughter, namely, Rajvindra Kaur was also present at the place of
incident in question at the relevant time. The police kept on
searching for the accused-respondent for about five days
thereafter. On 25.06.1991, the police was successful in taking the
accused-respondent into custody. On 28.06.1991, the accused-
respondent gave information to the police about the Kassi
(weapon), using which, he committed the crime in question and
also told the police that he can get the said weapon recovered
from his dhani. Accordingly, on the same day, at around 9:00 am,
the accused-respondent enabled the recovery of the said weapon
as well as the clothes last worn by the deceased, from the roof of
his Kotha. The same were then sent for FSL analysis, whereupon
FSL report was submitted to the effect that the human blood
detected on the said weapon as well as the clothes last worn by
the deceased was of the same blood group; whereupon, on
completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-
sheet against the accused-respondent.
4.4. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the
accused-respondent; the same upon being read over to the
accused, were denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial
accordingly commenced.
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (4 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
4.5. During the trial, the prosecution produced 09 witnesses and
exhibited 19 documents; in defence, 01 witness was produced and
02 documents were exhibited for examination. The accused-
respondent were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein
while pleading not guilty, the accused stated that they had been
falsely implicated in this case.
4.6. 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-respondent, vide
the impugned judgment dated 28.10.1992, as above. Hence, the
appellant-State has preferred this appeal claiming the afore-
quoted reliefs.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that in the
present case, there were three eye witnesses i.e PW.4 Karnail
Singh, PW.5 Rambindra and PW.6 Jangeer Singh, of the incident in
question, who had clearly stated in their testimonies that the
accused-respondent had committed the murder of the deceased,
but the learned Trial Court discarded their testimonies, and passed
the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-
respondent, which is not justified in law.
5.1. It was further submitted that PW.4 stated, in his testimony,
that when the accused-respondent started beating the deceased,
she shouted, whereupon, PW.5 & PW.6 reached the place of
occurrence, and it was found that the accused-respondent had
caused injuries by Kassi (weapon of murder) to the deceased. It
was also submitted that PW.3- Dr. Devilal also stated that injuries
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (5 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
were caused on the deceased's head and neck, due to which, she
died, and therefore, the entire evidence clearly shows that the
accused-respondent had murdered the deceased.
5.2. It was further submitted that the accused-respondent was
living separately, from the deceased (his first wife Choto) and
daughter (PW.5), and was living with another wife; PW.4 (father
of deceased) and PW.5 came at the place of occurrence at the
relevant time for resolving the dispute between the deceased and
the accused-respondent. It was also submitted that the FIR was
lodged, whereupon the investigation commenced; the distance
between the police station and the place of incident was only 8
kms, and therefore, the learned Trial Court had erred in holding
that the FIR was lodged after investigation.
5.3. It was further submitted that the Kassi (weapon) was
recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused-
respondent and as per the FSL Report (Ex.P/16), the human blood
detected on the said weapon and clothes of the deceased was of
the same blood group. Therefore, such evidence, which is
sufficient for convicting the accused-respondent, could not have
been discarded by the learned Trial Court, while passing the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
5.4. It was also submitted that PW.2-Buta Singh, who took the
photographs of the deceased's body, PW.3-Dr. Devilal who
conducted the postmortem of the deceased's body and PW.8-
Kailash Chandra (SHO) who conducted the investigation, have
fully supported the prosecution story, but still the learned Trial
Court, vide the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused-
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (6 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
respondent of the charge of murder against him, which is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5.5. It was further submitted that the prosecution had been able
to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all
reasonable doubts, on the strength of sufficient material and
evidence that was placed on record before the learned Trial Court,
but despite the same, learned Trial Court passed the impugned
judgment, which deserves to be reversed and accordingly, the
accused-respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced for
the crime of murder i.e. under Section 302 IPC.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-
respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that at time of
registration of the FIR, nothing was mentioned as regards the
presence of eye witness (PW.5) at the place of the incident, and
therefore, in such circumstances, she could not have been
produced as an eyewitness of the incident in question.
6.1. It was further submitted that the recovery witness PW.1 had
turned hostile during the trial, and other than this, there are
major contradictions in the testimonies of the other eye witnesses.
As per learned counsel, it is also contradictory on the face of the
record that as to at what time, the police arrived at the place of
incident in question.
6.2. It was further submitted that the place of incident in
question was having complete neighbourhood, but the prosecution
had not produced any independent witness during the trial. It was
also submitted that PW.5 stated that the Kassi (weapon) was lying
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (7 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
at the place of incident in question and the accused-respondent
ran away therefrom, but as per the police authority, the said Kassi
(weapon) was recovered on the basis of the information given by
the accused-respondent, which is nothing but a clear
contradiction, casting a shadow of doubt on the investigation.
6.3. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court after
considering all the evidence and material on record, passed the
impugned judgment of acquittal, which, in the given
circumstances, was justified in law and does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
8. This Court observes that the accused-respondent was
charged with the offence of murder of his wife (Choto), and after
conducting the trial, learned Trial Court acquitted him of the said
charge under Section 302 IPC, vide the impugned judgment.
9. This Court further observes that in the present case, there
were three eye witnesses namely, PW.4-Karnail Singh (father of
deceased), PW.5-Rajvinder Kaur (daughter of deceased) and
PW.6-Jangeer Singh.
9.1. A perusal of the testimony of PW.5 shows that at the relevant
time, she was present at the place of incident in question; she
stated that the accused-respondent was not living together with
her and her deceased mother, and also used to fight with her
mother (deceased); she further stated that PW.4 and PW.6 came
to her house a day prior to the date of incident in question to
convince the accused-respondent not to indulge into fight with the
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (8 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
deceased on petty issues. As per the said witness, the next day
(i.e. date of incident in question), when PW.4 & PW.6 left the place
and covered some distance (around 1/2 Kilometer) from the
house, accused-respondent started giving beatings to the
deceased, and then took out the Kassi (weapon), and started
hitting the deceased and caused injuries to her body; she also
stated that thereupon, PW. 5 started shouting, and on hearing the
same, PW.4 & PW.6 came back to the place of occurrence, and on
seeing them, the accused-respondent fled away from the said
place.
Relevant portion of the testimony of PW.5 is reproduced as
hereunder:-
" . . . . .esjs ukuk djusyflag o tjusyflag FkksM+h nwj vk/kk fdyk nwjh
ij x;s gksaxs rc esjk firk vaxzstflag Fkki eqDdksa ls ekjihV djus yxk fQj
ikl esa dLlh iM+h Fkh ftldks mBkdj esjs firk us 5&6 dLlh dh pksVsa esjh
eka ds ekjh tks rhu ckj flj ij ,d dku ds ikl ,d vka[k ds ikl yxh
esjh eka uhps fxj xbZ ,d fl/kh dLlh dh pksV esjh eka ds xys ij Hkh ekjhA
eSaus jksyk epk;k esjs ukuk o taxhjflag okfil vk x;s esjk firk vaxzstflag
dLlh ysdj viuh <k.kh dh rjQ Hkkx x;kA fQj geus esjh eka dks ns[kk rks
og rc rd ej pqdh FkhA"
9.2. A perusal of the testimonies of PW.5 and PW.6 shows that on
the date of incident in question, when they went away at around
1/2 kilometre therefrom, they heard the shouts of PW.5,
whereupon they immediately returned back and saw the accused-
respondent hitting the deceased by Kassi (weapon) and causing
injuries to head and neck of the deceased as a result whereof, the
blood was oozing from the body of the deceased. Under such
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (9 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
circumstances, they went to the police station and reported the
incident to the police.
Relevant portion of the testimonies of PW.4 & PW.6 are
reproduced as hereunder:-
Testimony of PW.4:
". . . . .vk/kk fdyk pys gksaxs fd ekjihV ds dkj.k esjh nksfgrh us gYyk
fd;k vaxzstflag us gekjh yM+dh dks ekjk ge vk/kk fdyk nwj ls ns[kus yxsA
ge okfil vk;s brus esa eqyfte us ns[krs ns[krs dLlh ls gekjh Nksjh dks
ekj fn;k vksj Hkkx x;kA flj] vksj xys ij eqyfte us pksVsa ekjh FkhaA esjh
yM+dh fxj xbZA pksVksa ls [kwc [kwu cgkA mlh le; eSa Fkkus pyk x;k eSa
vkSj taxhjflag nksuksa Fkkus x;s vkSj Fkkus esa fjiksVZ djk nhA "
Testimony of PW.6:
". . . . .bl ij eSa djusy flag ogka ls jokuk gks x;sA rc eqyfte NksVks
ds lkFk FkIiM+ eqDdh djus yxkA bl ij NksVks vkSj jktfcUnj us gYyk
fd;k ;g lqu dj ge okfil eqM+s ge djhc 40&50 QqV nwj Fks geus ns[kk
fd vaxzst flag NksVks ds flj ij 5&6 okj NksVks ds flj esa fd;sA NksVks ekSds
ij fxj x;hA geus uk ekj uk ekj dk gYyk fd;k rks vaxzst flag us dLlh
dk lh/kk okj NksVks ds xys ij fd;kA"
9.3. This Court further observes that a perusal of the testimonies
of aforesaid the eyewitnesses, contained some minor
contradictions, particularly, as regards the time of arrival of the
police at the place of incident in question, but except from such
contradiction, all the three eyewitnesses clearly deposed that the
accused-respondent caused several injuries to the deceased by
Kassi (weapon) and the said incident was clearly seen by all the
three eye witnesses i.e. PW.4, PW.5 & PW.6.
10. This Court also observes that a perusal of the postmortem
report (Ex.P/8) reveals that a total of 08 injuries were caused to
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (10 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
the deceased, and her death was caused due to head injury. This
Court further observes that as per the testimony of PW.3-Dr.
Devilal who conducted the postmortem of the deceased body, the
injuries were caused by some sharp-edged weapon, and injury no.
2 & injury no.6 were sufficient to caused her death; he further
stated that the injuries in question could have been caused by
Kassi (weapon of crime in question).
The description of the injuries caused to the deceased, as
mentioned in the testimony of PW.3, are reproduced as
hereunder:-
"1- dVk gqvk ?kko <kbZ bapx1@3ß x1@3ß [kksiM+h ds ihNs vksDlhihVy Hkkx
ij uhps dh rjQ Fkh ;g pksV lk/kkj.k Fkh o /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ
FkhA
2- dVk gqvk ?kko 3ßx1@2ß fnekx ij xgjkbZ rd esa [kksiM+h ij ihNs ds
Hkkx ij mijh rjQ o chp esa blds uhps dh vksDlhihVy gM~Mh VwVh ikbZ
xbZ o efLr'd Hkh dVk gqvk ik;k x;kA ;g pksV [krjukd o /kkjnkj
gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA
3- dVk gqvk ?kko Ms< bap x1@3ßx1@3 bap [kksiM+h ds ihNs ds Hkkx ij
mijh nks pksVksa ds uhps ;g pksV lk/kkj.k o /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA
4- dVk gqvk ?kko 1 ßx1@3ß x1@3 [kksiM+h ds ihNs ds Hkkx ckbZ vksj mijh
rjQ Fkh ;g pksV lk/kkj.k og /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA
5- dVk gqvk ?kko bap x1@3 ßx1@3ß [kksiM+h ij ihNs dh rjQ nkfguh vksj
nkfgus dku ds ihNs o mijh rjQ ;g pksV lk/kkj.k /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ
gqbZ FkhA
6- dVk gqvk ?kko <kbZ bap x1@2 bZp xefLr'd rd xgjk [kksiM+h ds chp
esa vfxze Hkkx ij tks ?kko vkxs ls ihNs dh vksj Fkk bl ?kko dks dkVus ij
nksuksa isjkbZVy gfM~M;ka VwVh gqbZ ikbZ xbZ o efLr'd Hkh uhps rd dVk gqvk
ik;k x;kA
;g pksV [krjukd /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh vkbZ gqbZ FkhA
7- dVk gqvk ?kko 3@4ß x1@3ß x1@3ß nkfguh vka[k ds HkkSag ij ckgjh
rjQ ;g pksV lk/kkj.k /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (11 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
8- dVk gqvk ?kko 4Þ x1@3ß x1@3Þ frjNk ?kko BksMh ds uhps VªhalorZ ;g
pksV lk/kkj.k o /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls vkbZ gqbZ FkhA"
11. This Court further observes that on the basis of the
information (Ex.P/15) given by the accused-respondent, the police
recovered the Kassi (weapon) from the house of the accused-
respondent and the human blood was also detected on the said
Kassi (weapon).
12. This Court also observes that the as per the FSL Report
(Ex.P/16), human blood as detected on the Kassi (weapon) was of
the same blood group, as found on the clothes last worn by the
deceased, and the said recovery was made by the police vide
Ex.P/13.
The relevant portion of the said FSL Report is reproduced as
hereunder:-
"DESCRIPTION OF PACKETS
The packet (s) Four packets marked A to D enclosed within
cloth packing which was/were properly sealed bearing impressions
which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded.
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES
Packet Exhibit No. Details of Exhibit Number/extent of
/ marked by blood stains
Parcels me
No.
A 1 Blood smeared soil Blood smeared
B 2 Control soil No blood
C 3 Kurta Moderate, brown,
Faint brown,
medium, small, at
places, thick, thin.
4 Salwar Few, Red brown,
Faint brown,
medium, small, at
places, thin.
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (12 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
D 5 Kassi Moderate, brown,
Faint brown,
medium, small, at
places, thick, thin.
RESULT OF EXAMINATION
Exhibit No.1 (from packet marked A), 3, 4 (from C) and 5
(from D) are stained with Human blood.
REPORT ON BLOOD GROUP
Exhibit No.1 (from A) 3, 4, (from C) and 5 (from D) are
stained with "A" group blood."
13. This Court also observes that PW.1-Gurdutt Singh who was
the recovery witness had turned hostile during the trial, while the
other prosecution witnesses have clearly supported prosecution
story, with no material contradiction and/or inconsistency.
14. This Court is conscious that the power of interference in the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is provided
under Section 386 Cr.P.C., as per which, the Appellate Court can
reverse the finding of the learned Trial Court and convict the
accused and award the sentence, as per law. The relevant portion
of Section 386 is reproduced as hereunder:-
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.
--After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his
pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he
appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section
378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it
considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering,
dismiss the appeal, or may--
(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order
and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused
be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find
him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;"
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (13 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
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):
"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."
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (14 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra):
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 also observes that the scope of interference in the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is provided
in aforequoted precedent law as well as in Section 386 Cr.P.C., and
when the same is applied in the present case at hand, it is
revealed, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the
learned Trial Court had omitted/misread the material evidence on
record, including the testimonies of three eyewitnesses of the
incident in question, recovery of Kassi (weapon of crime in
question), injuries caused to the deceased, medical report as well
as other evidence, which were sufficient to convict and sentence
the accused-respondent for the crime in question. Thus, the
impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court
suffers from illegality, perversity and errors of law and facts.
16.1. This Court also observes that the learned Trial Court while
passing the impugned judgment of acquittal had clearly ignored
the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, merely on count of
some minor contradictions therein, and also ignored the other
[2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB] (15 of 15) [CRLA-98/1995]
corroborative evidence produced on record by the prosecution,
which is nothing but a patent error of law in the impugned
judgment of acquittal. This Court further observes that on the
basis of evidence and material available on record, there could
have been no other view in the present case, other than the one
of convicting the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC.
17. Thus, looking into the overall evidence and material on
record the acquittal of respondent-accused under Section 302 IPC
vide the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law,
and therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellate-State is
allowed, while quashing and setting aside the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.1992 passed by learned Trial
Court.
17.1. Resultantly, for the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC, the accused-respondent is awarded Life Imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of which, he shall
undergo further six months' Rigorous Imprisonment.
17.2. The accused-respondent is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled/forfeited. He is ordered to be taken back into custody, to
be sent to the concerned Jail, to serve out the sentence so
awarded to him, by the present judgment.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
