Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Dinesh (2025:Rj-Jd:3309-Db) on 17 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209/2015
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Dinesh son of Puniya, resident of Gaminiya Moti, Police Station-
Sallaupt, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Respondent/Accused
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
17/01/2025
To challenge the judgment of acquittal of Dinesh dated
13th March 2014 in Session Case No.86 of 2011, the present
Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.
2. On the basis of the written report dated 31st July 2006, given
by Partheng, a crime was registered vide Case No.79 of 2006
under Sections 147, 148, 342, 323, 302 and 201/149 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Bheema,
Smt. Resham, Hakarsing, Gautam, Ratna, Magan, Gulab, Laxman,
Kamji, Havji and Dinesh. After the investigation the
aforementioned accused persons were sent up for trial and a
charge under Sections 148, 302, 342 and 201/149 of the Indian
Penal Code was framed against all of them. The trial qua Dinesh,
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
who is the sole respondent in the present Criminal Appeal, was
separated and he was put on trial in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011.
3. In support of the case against Dinesh, the prosecution
examined as many as 11 witnesses and in documentary evidence
exhibited 13 documents. The statement of Dinesh was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he claimed innocence and that
the prosecution witnesses made false allegations deliberately.
4. The prosecution projected PW-6 Mukesh as an eye-witness,
on whose instance, the written report was given to the police by
Partheng. Though, PW-6 was not declared hostile, the learned trial
Court found serious discrepancies in his testimony. Such findings
of the Additional District and Sessions Judge are reproduced
herein under:-
"Even after examining the medical evidence in conjunction
with the eyewitness accounts, the statements of witness Mukesh
(PW6) remain unsubstantiated. It is a matter of common
understanding that if a person is bound to a tree with a rope and
subsequently beaten, the victim would likely exhibit signs of
distress, such as groaning from the pain of the injuries, as well
as marks from the rope on their body while attempting to free
himself. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect that the victim
would sustain typical injuries on their back due to the tree's
bark. Although the village Gamaniya Hamira may have been
sparsely populated, it has not been established that no one
other than the accused's family members resided there on the
day of the incident. According to the testimony of Dr.
Laxmiprakash Nagar (PW9), it is evident that the deceased,
Sohan, sustained 24 injuries. Under such circumstances, it is
likely that the victim would have cried out, prompting villagers
to gather upon hearing his cries. However, the assertion that no
one from the village was aware of the incident, especially during
a serious crime like murder committed in a public place, is
implausible. Furthermore, the ligature marks from the rope are
not documented in either the Panchnama report or the post-
mortem report of the deceased. Consequently, the claim that
accused Dinesh, along with other accomplices, assaulted Sohan
after binding him to the mango tree remains unverified. In this
case, no evidence has been recovered from the accused."
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
5. PW-6 Mukesh did support the prosecution while tendering his
evidence in the Court but we are inclined to accord our approval to
the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court for not accepting
his testimony. The inherent improbabilities in his evidence cannot
be ignored and he was rightly found not a trustworthy witness.
The learned trial Court discussed their evidence and held that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and the discrepancies found in the
testimony of the eye-witness PW-6 Mukesh, raises suspicion with
regard to his credibility of the evidence tendered by him. It is also
not reasonable to assume that as per the statement of PW-6
Mukesh, if the deceased was tied to a mango tree with rope, he
would not have resisted to the same by way of crying or wailing,
which would have gathered people from the village, but that is not
the case here.
6. Mukesh who was styled as eyewitness of the incident on
seeing the accused assaulting Sohan fled from the place of
occurrence and did not take any action to save Sohan despite
witnessing the assault. He did not make any attempt to intervene
or took any steps that could have potentially saved the deceased's
life. The conduct of Mukesh cannot be approved and he did not
immediately report the incident to anyone and it was only in the
evening, when he went to Partheng (PW-1), he disclosed the
incident, which raises a question about his credibility.
7. After having gone through the materials on record, we
observe that the written report which was lodged one day after
the occurrence implicating 11 persons in the crime was on a
suspicion that Sohan was done to death on account of his past
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
relationship with Resham whose marriage was later on solemnized
with Bheema. According to the prosecution, on the date of the
occurrence Sohan and Mukesh were proceeding to village Gamania
Moti and on the way they were apprehended by the accused
persons but Mukesh somehow could escape from the clutches of
the accused persons. This is the further case of the prosecution
that Sohan was tied with rope, hanged through a tree and then
beaten by lathi. However, the Additional District and Sessions
Judge has rendered his opinion that in such a situation there
should have been evidence of co-villagers and there were no such
injuries found on the person of Sohan which could have been
caused to a person who was tied with rope.
8. With regard to the medical evidence, it is seen that though
Dr. Laxmi Prakash (PW-9) stated that he had received 24 injuries
on the person of Sohan and one of the injuries was on the
temporal region, in absence of any evidence tendered in the Court
on the complicity of the accused, Dinesh, the learned trial Court
had no option but to record the judgment of acquittal of the
accused. Moreover, as rightly observed by the learned trial Court
the fact that no evidence has been laid to show that the deceased
was tied with a rope to the mango tree and beaten up by the
accused, as stated by PW-6 Mukesh, inasmuch as if the deceased
had been tied with the rope and then beaten, there would have
been ligature marks or abrasions on his body and also, in such
circumstance, the deceased's body would have rubbed against the
mango tree on account of movements made by him in attempt to
escape from the rope, leading to abrasion marks on his back.
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
However, the same could not be demonstrated by the prosecution,
which further weakens the case of prosecution.
9. The evidence gathered from the site of incident, such as
Naksha Mauka which indicates that there were no bloodstains
found and this does not corroborate with the statement of PW-6
Mukesh. Though PW-8 Mohan Singh has stated that it was raining
on the date of incident and, therefore, no bloodstains were found
on the place of occurrence but we find that the learned trial Court
has rightly noted that when the deceased's body was found the
crops were standing intact, which refutes the complete premise of
statement given by PW-8 Mohan Singh. This Court also finds that
no recovery has been effected at the instance of the
accused/respondent.
10. This is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence that the
identity of the accused must be established and there should be
sufficient evidence on his complicity in the crime. As we have
noticed, Mukesh (PW-6), who was projected by the prosecution as
eye-witness, was held not reliable and trustworthy and no other
evidence was produced by the prosecution to connect the
respondent with murder of Sohan.
11. We are also conscious that the power of the High Court to
interfere with a judgment of acquittal should be exercised only in
cases where it is demonstrated that the trial Court committed
such error in law which has occasioned in failure of justice.
12. Having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court
which are based on the proper appreciation on the materials on
record, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated
13th March 2014 passed in Sessions Case No.86 of 2011.
[2025:RJ-JD:3309-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLA-209/2015]
13. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2015 is dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
17-/Ravi Khandelwal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
