Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Mukh Ram (2024:Rj-Jd:38724-Db) on 19 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (1 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 704/2000
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mukh Ram son of Harji Ram, resident of Oadki, P.S. Hindumal
Kote, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
19/09/2024
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a
challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2000, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in
Sessions Case No.4/2000 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukh Ram),
whereby the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the
year 1999 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2000.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.
C.S. Ojha, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant-State, are that the incident which was reported at
8:00 am on 09.10.1999, occurred at 10:00 pm on 08.10.1999
when the complainant Pappu Ram alongwith his brother Jagdish
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
and cousin Banwari went to the nearby field of their uncle
(Chacha) Mukh Ram-accused where deceased Jagdish confronted
Mukh Ram as to why he was spreading false rumours about his
wife, upon which the accused Mukh Ram (uncle) got annoyed and
used a sword to hit the deceased Jagdish due to which deceased
Jagdish fell down. Thereafter, the deceased Jagdish was taken to
the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar where he was declared
dead.
4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR
was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly.
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 seven
prosecution witnesses were recorded in which crucial witness were
PW.2- Pappu Ram who was the eye witnesses and brother of the
deceased and PW.3-Madan Singh who was the Investigating
Officer. Further 19 documents were exhibited on behalf of the
prosecution and one document was 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 of acquittal dated
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
08.05.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred
on behalf of the appellant-State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the PW.2- Pappu Ram is an eye witness and the analogy drawn by
him is such that it cannot be discarded whereas the learned trial
Court has proceeded to find lacuna in the testimony of PW.2 Pappu
Ram which otherwise is consistent.
7.1 Learned counsel for the State further submits that the
doctor had also supported the injury, to be the cause of death,
thus, it was a case where the conviction should have been arrived
at. The minor discrepancies in the prosecution case were not
sufficient enough to overlook the prosecution case and to collapse
the same.
7.2 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the
description of one injury on the chest and then one on the neck is
also a corollary and therefore should not go in favour of the
accused.
7.3 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the
analogy of carrying the body of deceased on a cot and then
shifting it on a camel cart was also a part of natural flow of event
which happened resulting into the deceased being taken to the
hospital and being declared dead.
7.4 Learned counsel for the State also submits that PW.2-
Pappu Ram has accepted in his deposition that they had gone to
the Police Station at Hindumal Kote at about 03:00 am but the
report was taken only at about 07:00 am which is there on record
as Ex.-P/2.
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
7.5 Learned counsel for the State also submits that in the
given circumstances where the place of incident was a private field
and it was an inter-family altercation, the question of any
independent prosecution witness is remote and thus, the
circumstantial evidence connecting the death of the deceased and
the reason for altercation as well as the consistency of the
statement of PW.2-Pappu Ram who was also the complainant in
the case is sufficient to nail down the accused Mukh Ram in the
offence alleged.
8 On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Kaushik learned counsel for
the accused-respondent while opposing the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the description of the
injuries also creates a doubt upon the incident.
8.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further
submits that the critical witness Banwari who was present at the
place of incident was not produced as prosecution witness and
thus, the prosecution having been silent on that also creates a
grave doubt in the present circumstances.
8.2 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that PW.3- Madan Singh, the investigating officer in his deposition
has simply evaded the question regarding the prime witness
Banwari, by saying that he forgot to add him as witness, which is
highly improbable.
8.3 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that the incident had happened at 10:00 pm which had come on
the record at 08:00 am on the next day and in the meantime a
story could possibly be developed with the help of the near
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
relatives particularly when PW.2- Pappu Ram, the eye witness is
real brother of the deceased Jagdish.
8.4 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that the possibility of PW.2-Pappu Ram accompanying the
deceased Jagdish in the given circumstance when he was not
present at the field (site in question) also is a remote possibility
and creates a doubt on the prosecution story.
8.5 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that the brothers were not living together and thus the possibility
of Pappu Ram having been planted as an eye witness is highly
probable.
8.6 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent pointed out
that the incident was of 10:00 pm and reporting was next day at
08:00 am adds strength to the such possibility of planting the
witness.
8.7 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that once a doubt is created as to the credibility of PW.2-Pappu
Ram being an eye witness should not be given the benefit of such
doubt to the accused-respondent.
8.8 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that in case any investigation of Banwari had taken place then
there would have been a possibility of co-relating the whole thing
as per the narration of the complainant but the moment the
Investigating Officer (PW.-3) said that he had forgotten to consider
Banwari as witness, the prosecution falls in his shadow.
8.9 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further
submits that as per the first narration, the complainant, had
submitted that there was only one blow of the sword which
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
resulted into the death but there was another injury on chest
which reflects that PW.2-Pappu Ram was not aware of the exact
version.
8.10 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that a sword had been recovered and the word Kripan has been
used for it, whereas both are different kind of blades in terms of
technicalities.
8.11 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further
submits that the distance shown by the prosecution between eye
witness PW.2- Pappu Ram and the actual scene is about 165 feet
and at 10' O clock at night it could be an impediment to see an
exact version of the incident as an eye witness, and the same has
also been demonstrated from the site plan which is Ex. -P/6.
8.12 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits
that the evasive reply of PW.3-Madan Singh casts shadow on the
story of the prosecution, whereas PW.2- Pappu Ram being the
brother, is only an interested witness and on his sole testimony
the prosecution case could not have been tested and thus the
learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at the decision of acquitting
the accused-respondent.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as
perused the record of the case.
10. This Court observes that there are certain discrepancies
which were unexplained as the complainant has sympathetically
submitted that Banwari was there at the scene whereas Banwari
has not been talked about by the Investigating Officer at all, so
much so, that, in his deposition before the Court the Investigating
Officer PW.3- Madan Singh has deposed that he forgot to include
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
Banwari as a witness, whereas, there could be a plausible
explanation for not including him as a witness.
11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the incident
has happened between the relatives, as the accused-respondent is
the Uncle (Chacha) and at the field the altercation had happened
because of rumours about wife of Jagdish the deceased and thus,
it could be an inter-family rivalry issue which could have resulted
into the incident in question. This Court is also conscious of the
fact that PW.2- Pappu Ram is the real brother of the deceased and
he has been shown by the prosecution to be at a distance of 165
feet from the scene at about 10:00 pm at night with no source of
light at the field.
12. This Court also noted that there is discrepancy in the
description of the blade on record. The FSL is also not supporting
the connection of the accused with the crime as there is grave
doubt regarding the FSL report (Ex.P/19) in question which has
also been taken into account in the impugned order. There is no
other eye witness in the matter.
13. This Court also observed that the incident happened at
10:00 pm at night and was reported at 08:00 am on the next day,
however, such delay is possible in such circumstances as the crime
has happened in a Rural area. However, the overall conclusion
arrived at by the learned Trial Court, giving the benefit of doubt to
the accused-respondent is sustainable and even if, there could be
two views to the said incident the other view cannot be held to be
wrong just because there is an other view plausible.
14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to
reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
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 governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section
378 of CrPC as follows:
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
"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."
15. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
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.
15.1 This Court observes that the said Banwari was present at the
place of incident at the relevant time, but was not produced as
witness during the trial and no explanation has been furnished by
the prosecution in this regard. The testimony of PW-2 Pappu Ram
was not reliable as allegedly, he has seen the incident in question
from a distance of 165 feet at about 10:00 p.m.; that apart, there
was no eye witness to the incident in question. Furthermore, the
FSL report also did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-
respondent, beyond all reasonable doubts.
16. 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:38724-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLA-704/2000]
17. 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.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
19. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section
437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, the accused-respondent Mukh Ram S/o Harji
Ram 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-
respondent, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do
so.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
23-Dharmendra Rakhecha & BhumikaP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
