Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Sohan Lal And Anr ... on 26 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 382/2001
State
----Appellant
Versus
Sohan Lal And Anr
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
Mr. Naman Bhansali
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
26/09/2024
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-State
laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2001
passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodpur in
Sessions Case No.38/99 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal &
Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the
charges against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B & 302 of IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 1999 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2001.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.
Sameer Pareek, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the appellant-
State, are that on 29.01.1999, at about 11.45 A.M, a report was
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
lodged by one Harlal Vishnoi at concerned Police Station (Ex.P-8)
wherein it was alleged that five years ago, his daughter Pista was
married to the accused Sohan Lal, and after about two years of
marriage, his daughter was harassed and physically abused by
her husband. It was also alleged in the report that after being
subjected to continuous harassment, four months ago, his
daughter Pista came to his house and on the night of the incident,
at about 9.00 P.M., her husband came there. Next day when the
mother of the deceased and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) went to her
room in the morning, she was lying dead while accused Sohan Lal
had disappeared from the site.
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 against the accused
respondents. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed the
charges against accused Mangilal for the offence under Section
498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sohan Lal for the offence under
Sections 498-A, 304-B in alternative 302 of IPC; the said charges
were read over and explained to the accused respondents, which
they denied and claimed to stand due trial and trial commenced
accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 14 prosecution
witnesses were recorded and 25 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the prosecution and 4 documents were exhibited on
behalf of the accused-respondents; whereafter, the accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
the accused respondents pleaded innocence and their 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-respondents, vide
the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.02.2001, against
which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant-State.
7. Mr. Sameer Pareek, learned AGA submits that there are
presumptions, which have to be drawn because the marriage was
solemnized five years ago and she has also been subjected to
harassment, and thus, the burden of proof in the criminal
jurisprudence involving Section 304-B of IPC requires a stricter
view to be taken by the learned trial court.
7.1 Learned AGA further submits that the poison might have
been administered by the husband, as he was there with the
deceased at the night preceding the death. He also submits that
the evidence of harassment by the father-in-law and the son
(husband of the deceased) was brought on record, and thus, it is a
clear case where the conviction ought to have been arrived at by
the learned trial court.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumbhat along with Mr.
Sheetal Kumbhat and Mr. Naman Bhansali, learned counsel
representing the accused-respondents, while opposing the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that
while the date of incident is 28.01.1999, it was reported on
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
29.01.1999 in the intervening night, it is clear from the post-
mortem report as well as description of the crime scene that the
deceased Pista did not have any kind of physical injuries on her
body or nor was there any sign of physical resistance on her part,
if in case the poison was administered forcibly by her husband.
8.1 Learned counsel further submits that the incident is of 1994
and about 25 years have passed since the incident whereas Sohan
Lal and his father Mangi Lal would have acquired the age.
8.2 Learned counsel also submits that 14 witnesses were
examined, but the critical examination is of PW-4 Sugni (mother
of the deceased), PW-5 Papudi, who is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of
the deceased, both have categorically stated that about 4-5
months ago, the deceased Pista had come to her parents' house
and had been living there making it unlikely for any kind of
distress or apparent harassment to occur, and it appears as if the
presence of the husband has been fabricated by the witnesses.
8.3 Learned counsel further submits that there are neither any
sign of injury nor any external mark / sign that shows resistance
on part of deceased in case the poison was forcibly administered.
He further submits that the post-mortem report read with the FSL
report only indicates that an insecticide had been consumed,
resulting in death.
8.4 Learned counsel further submits that on conjoint
consideration of the Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10, it becomes clear that it
was a voluntary act of the deceased, which resulted into her
unfortunate death. He further submits that the case of harassment
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
and dowry demand has been made out with a help of certain
prosecution witnesses, which has been disbelieved by the learned
Trial Court, as the natural course of events regarding the primary
cause of death itself has failed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
10. This Court finds that the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the
conclusion that it was not a case of homicide, but a case of
suicide, because the deceased lady had been staying in her
parents' house for the last 4-5 months, as per the version of her
mother, along with other family members too. The period of 4-5
months, in the opinion of this Court, is sufficient time where if the
husband's family had used their influence to cause serious
harassment by making some overt act that would have been
reflected in the evidence rendered by family members.
10.1 This Court further finds that as per Ex.P-1 Fard Halat Mauka,
Ex.P-5 Fard Surtahal Lash and Ex.P-9 Post-mortem report of
deceased, there was no sign of any kind of resistance on the part
of the deceased in case the insecticide would have been forcibly
administered. The post-mortem report clearly indicates that there
are no injuries and the FSL report indicates only that the cause of
death was insecticide, and thus, the prosecution has not able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the version of
prosecution is believed that Sohan Lal was at the house of the
deceased, then also there were surrounded with the family
members and any kind of resistance or any kind of physical use of
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
force, could not have escaped the attention of the family members
and particularly would have shown on the place of incident or in
the medical report, post-portem report or in the FSL report.
11. Thus, in the overall factual matrix and the circumstances
surrounding the case, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
16.02.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be
anything, which would call for intervention of this Court to reverse
the same.
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;
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
(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;
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."
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
13. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondents under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of 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
and every witness at a considerable length and duly analyzed 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.
14. 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.
15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the
[2024:RJ-JD:40126-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-382/2001]
aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit
case warranting any interference by this Court.
16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
17. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./
Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a
sum of Rs. 25,000/-each 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-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as she would be called
upon to do so.
18. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
39-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
