Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Panna Lal And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:4511-Db) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.384/2002
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Panna Lal son of Moti Lal Ved,
2. Shri Gopal Lal son of Panna Lal Ved,
3. Shri Kalu Lal son of Panna Lal Ved,
All residents of Peelu, P.S. Rathanjan, District-Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG,
assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma,
AAAG.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
JUDGMENT
23/01/2025
To challenge the judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions
Case No.139 of 1999 by which Panna Lal and his two sons,
namely, Gopal Lal and Kalu Lal were acquitted of the charge
framed against them under sections 302, 307, 325, 341 and 323
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing
murder of Mangilal, the State of Rajasthan has filed this State
appeal under section 378 (i) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by Madangir who gave his
statement to the police officer while undergoing treatment at the
hospital at 7.30 AM on 10th May 1999 is, that while he and
Mangilal were returning home after meeting Dalpat Singh who was
the Sarpanch of the village Bhatkhedi, at around 11:00 PM they
were attacked by the accused persons with lathi and axe. The
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
informant claimed that he identified the accused persons as Panna
Lal, Gopal Lal and Kalu Lal in the light of matchstick.
The informant also stated in the fardbeyan that he and Mangilal
suffered serious injuries at the hands of Gopal Lal and Kalu Lal.
Later that night, Purushottam and Mukesh who are the son of
Mangilal came searching for him and they narrated the entire
incident to them and they were taken to Pratapgarh Hospital
where Mangilal died during treatment. On the basis of the 'Fard
Bayan' of Madangir recorded by P.W.10 Raghuveer Singh, a crime
was registered against the aforementioned accused persons.
Madangir was examined by P.W.9 Dr. Vimal Chandra who found
three incised wounds and one lacerated wound on his person.
According to the prosecution, Mangilal died the same night and his
postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.13 Dr. Narendra
Swaroop Mathur who found as many as 14 injuries on his person.
3. In the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of
whom Madangir was projected as an eye-witness. In a murder
trial, the testimony of an injured witness assumes significance for
the reason that he is the person who lends assurance to the Court
that he has seen the occurrence. Still, the evidence of the injured
witness is appreciated with the same yardstick that is applied to
other witnesses and the testimony of an injured witness cannot be
put on a higher pedestal. Mangi Lal stated in the Court that
around 11.00 AM in the night of 9th May 1999 Panna Lal and his
sons encountered them between the village Bharkhedi and Peelu
and on the exhortation of Pannal Lal his sons, namely, Gopal Lal
and Kalu Lal started assaulting Mangi Lal. Seeing the attack on
Mangi Lal when Madangir tried to flee away he was caught by
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
Panna Lal and Gopal lal and Kalu Lal gave fatal blows to his head.
According to this witness, the motive for the occurrence was that
there was some dispute between Panna Lal and Mangi Lal
regarding the passage from their land. In the cross-examination,
P.W.1 Madangir admitted that it was a dark night. However, he
further stated that he could also see the other person. He also
admitted that he was staying in the house of the wife of Mangi Lal
but he cannot produce any written agreement regarding the
tenancy and even the rent was not fixed by that time. All through
his cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion of the defence
that (i) he had illicit relationship with the wife of Mangi Lal, (ii) the
wife of Mangi Lal had fled away from her matrimonial home on
several occasions in the past, (iii) the villagers of Multanpura were
angry for this reason and they had fought with Panna Lal and
Mangi Lal and, (iv) the informant became unconscious after the
assault upon him.
4. For a better appreciation of the testimony of P.W.1, the
statements made by him in the cross-examination are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"& ;g lgh gS fd jkr vU/ksjh FkhA ysfdu ,d nwljs dks ns[k ldrs FksA
okj vkxs ls fd;k FkkA eSa tk jgk Fkk ysfdu eq>s iUukyky us idM+ fy;k FkkA
& eq>s iUukyky us idM+ fy;k Fkk vkSj xksiky us yB ekj fn;k FkkA ;g vkM+s
fQjs vkSj ekSds ij gh lcls igys eq>s idM+ fy;kA lcls igys ekaxhyky dks
idM+k FkkA ftl oDr iUukyky us eq>s idM+ j[kk Fkk ml oDr xksiky us esjs
yB ekjkA vkSj eSa Hkh uhps fxj x;kA eSa csgks"k ugha gqvkA dk:yky us fQj jiV
dj esjs dqYgkMh dh nh FkhA nksuksa ds lkFk ekjihV lkFk&lkFk gqbZ eSa Hkkxus yxk
rks esjs ekjhA igys okj ekaxhyky ij fd;k vkSj fQj nwljk okj eq> ij dj
fn;kA eSa vHkh esjs ?kj ij jg jgk gwaA ekaxhyky dh vkSjr ds lkFk dkSu cSBk gS
eq>s irk ughaA eSa igys esjs HkkbZ ds uksgjs esa jg jgk FkkA eSa vHkh ekaxhyky dh
vkSjr ds edku esa fdjk;s ls jg jgk gwaA vHkh ,d efgus ls fdjk;s ij jg jgk
gwaA mldh dksbZ fdjk;k fpVBh ;k fy[kki<h ugha dj j[kh gSaA vHkh HkkM+k r;
ugha fd;k tks ekaxsxs og ns nwaxkA dqLre us dgk fd vHkh esjs ?kj esa jgksA eq>s
irk ugha fd ekaxhyky dh vkSjr mefj;k Hkkx dj xbZ gksA o mldks ekaxhyky
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
o iUukyky ysdj vk;s rks eq>s irk ughaA eSaus lquk Fkk fd ekaxhyky dh vkSjr
nwljh ckj fQj eqYrkuiwjk Hkkx dj xbZ FkhA eqYrkuiwjk okyks us ekaxhyky o
iUukyky ls >xM+k fd;k gks rks eq>s irk ughaA ljiap lkgc ds ?kj ls ge
X;kjg cts jokuk gq, FksA ihyw o HkkV[ksMh ds chp dh nwjh ,d fd-eh- gksxhA
tgka iSny tkus esa vk/ks ?kUVs ls de dk le; yxrk gSA ;g xyr gS fd oDr ?
kVuk eSus o ekaxhyky us "kjkc ih j[kk gksA ekaxhyky ds yB iMrs gh ekaxhyky
uhps fxj x;k Fkk vkSj ekaxhyky csgk"k gks x;k FkkA vt [kwn dgk fd dk:yky
us dqYgkM+h dh ekjh FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ekaxhyky ds yB iMrs gh eSa [kqyk
Fkk vkSj eSa Hkxus yxk rks eq>s ikl ls gh idM+ fy;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd vU/ksjh
gks vkSj eq>s iUukyky us idM+ j[kk gks vkSj eSus ugha ns[kk gksA ekjihV ls eSa
csgk"k gks x;k Fkk ysfdu eqyfteku ds Hkkxus ds cknA gks"k eq>s gkfLiVy esa
vk;k FkkA gkfLiVy esa ckWVy p<us ds ckn eq>s gks"k vk x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh
gS fd esjs csgks"k gksus ds ckn D;k gqvk ysfdu eqyfteku ds Hkkxus ds ckn eSa
csgks"k gqvk FkkA Fkkus ij fjiksVZ djkus ekaxhyky dk yM+dk x;k FkkA fjiksVZ izn"kZ
ih&3 ekaxhyky ds yM+ds iq:'kksre us ntZ djkbZ FkhA mlds ckn iqfyl lqcg
pkj cts vkbZ FkhA eSa iyax ij iMk FkkA eSus lqu fy;k Fkk fd ekaxhyky
izrkix< gkfLiVy esa vkdj ej x;kA eSusa ekaxhyky ls eqyfteku ds Hkkxus ds
ckn ckr dh FkhA eSus ekaxhyky dks dgk fd eSa ej x;k gwa D;ksafd esjk ekFkk QVk
gqvk FkkA esjs iSj esa QSDpj vk;k Fkk ysfdu gM~Mh gkFk dh VwVh Fkh ikao dh ugha
VwVh FkhA gekjs yMkbZ >xMk gksus ds ckn ?kUVs Hkj ckn ekaxhyky ds yM+ds vk;s
FksA vt [kwn dgk fd ekaxhyky ls ckr djus ds ckn eSa csgks"k gqvk FkkA
eqyfteku ds Hkxrs gh ekaxhyky ls ckr dh Fkh vkSj ckr djrs gh eSa csgk"k gks
x;k FkkA iqfyl us eq>ls vLirky esa gh iwNrkN dh FkhA c;ku esjs gks"k esa gqos
Fks csgk"kh gkyr esa ugha gq, FksA ;g ckr lgh gSa fd uk gh esjs Fkkus ij tkus dk
dke iMk uk gh iqfyl okyks us ckn esa c;ku fy;sA iqfyl okys gkfLiVy esa
c;ku gksus ds ckn iqfyl okys vHkh iUnzg jkst igys rkjh[k nsus vk;s FksA ;g
lgh gS fd eSusa ?kVukLFky dk ekSdk Lo;a tkdj ugha crk;k Fkk D;ksafd eSa
gkfLiVy esa HkrhZ FkkA eq>s ekywe ugha fd eSa ihyw xkao esa jgrk gks vkSj ekaxhyky
dh vkSjr dbZ yksxksa ds lkFk Hkkxh gksA esjs ifRu] cky&cPps ugha gSaA esjh vkSjr
Hkh Hkkx xbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa ekaxhyky dh vkSjr ds lkFk jg jgk
gwaA eSa rks iq:'kksre ds edku esa jgrk gwaA ekaxhyky ds nks&rhu edku esa gSa
eSa ,d NksVh vksjh esa jg jgk gwaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ekaxhyky dk ,d gh
edku gks vkSj ml edku esa mldh vkSjr jgrh gks mlesa eSa jgrk gwaA IykV dk
fookn ekaxhyky o iUukyky ds lkyHkj igys ls gh gSaA tc eSa ekaxhyky ds
lkFk x;k vkSj ?kVuk gqbZ ml le; ekaxhyky ds edku esa ugh jgrk FkkA ;g
dguk xyr gS fd eSa ekaxhyky dh vkSjr ds lkFk jgrk gwa blfy;s ;g >wBs
c;ku ns jgk gwaA"
English Translation:-
"........- It is true that it was a dark night, but we could
see each other. The attack was made from the front. I tried to
run away but Panna Lal caught hold of me.
- Panna Lal caught hold of me and Gopal assaulted me
with a Lathi. They turned around and caught me first. At first
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
they caught Mangi Lal. When Panna Lal caught hold of me,
Gopal inflicted Lathi blows to me and I also fell down but I was
not unconscious. Then, Karulal again assaulted me with an
axe. We both were beaten up simultaneously. When I tried to
run away, they hit me. Firstly, they attacked Mangi Lal and
then they attacked me. Now, I am living at my home. I do not
know who is sitting with the wife of Mangi Lal. Earlier, I used
to live at my brother's Nohra and now, I am living on rent in
the house of the wife of Mangi Lal. I have been living on rent
for one month now. I have not given any rent letter or any
written agreement. The rent has not been decided yet.
Whatever they will ask for, I will pay it. Kustam said that stay
in my house for now. Whether the wife of Mangi Lal has fled
away to Umaria or if Mangi Lal and Panna Lal brought him, I
do not know. I had heard that the wife of Mangi Lal had fled
away to Multanpura for the second time. Whether the people
of Multanpur had a fight with Mangi Lal and Panna Lal, I do
not know. We left the house of Sarpanch at 11 O' Clock. The
distance between Peelu and Bhatkhedi would be 1 km. It takes
less than an hour to walk there. It is wrong that Mangi Lal and
I were drunk at the time of the incident. As soon as Mangi Lal
got hit by Lathi, he fell down and became unconscious. Today,
he himself said that Karulal had hit him with an axe. It is true
that as soon as Mangi Lal got hit by Lathi, I started running
and I was caught. It is wrong that it was a dark night and
Panna Lal had caught hold of me and I did not see it. I got
unconscious due to the attack but that too when the accused
fled away. I regained consciousness after receiving blood
transfusion at the hospital. What happened after I became
unconscious is true but I became unconscious after the
accused had fled away. The son of Mangi Lal Purushottam had
gone to the police station to file a report (Exhibit-3).
Thereafter, the police arrived in the morning at four. I was
lying on the bed. I had heard that Mangi Lal died after coming
to Pratapgarh Hospital. I had talked to Mangi Lal about the
escape of the accused. I told Mangi Lal about my pain due to
the injury on my forehead. My leg was fractured, but it was
my hand bone which was broken and not my forearm. The son
of Mangi Lal came there an hour later after our fight. Today, I
myself said that I became unconscious after talking to Mangi
Lal. I spoke to Mangi Lal as soon as the accused fled away and
I became unconscious as soon as I talked to him. The police
interrogated me in the hospital itself. I gave my statement
when I was conscious and not unconscious. It is true that
neither did I have to go to the police station or did the police
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
take my statement later. After recording the statement in the
hospital, the police personnel came and informed the date just
fifteen days earlier. It is true that I did not go and tell the
place of the incident myself because I was admitted in the
hospital. I do not know whether I live in Peelu village or the
wife of Mangi Lal has run away. I do not have wife and
children. My wife has also ran away. It is wrong to say that I
am living with the wife of Mangi Lal. I live in Purushottam's
house. Mangi Lal has two-three houses and I am living in a
small ori. It is wrong to say that Mangi Lal has only one house
and his wife lives there, I live in that house. There is a dispute
between Mangi Lal and Panna Lal about the plot since a year.
When the incident took place, I went with Mangi Lal and I was
not in the house of Mangi Lal. It is wrong to say that I live
with the wife of Mangi Lal and I am giving false
statements. ....."
5. Another important witness for the prosecution was P.W.3
Dalpat Singh who affirmed the fact that Mangi Lal had a dispute
with his brother Panna Lal regarding the passage. P.W.3 also
affirmed that in the evening of 9 th May 1999 Madangir and Panna
Lal had visited him. The wife of the deceased was examined as
P.W.7 and his two sons who came in the dock as P.W.5 and P.W.8
supported the prosecution case to the extent that when Mangi Lal
did not return home in the evening of 9 th May 1999 they had
started a search for him and found Mangi lal and Madangir lying
unconscious on the roadside between the village Bharkhedi and
Peelu. The Officer-in-Charge of the Rathanjana Police Station who
was examined as P.W.10 stated in the Court that on a wireless
information received from Pratapgarh Police Station at around
6.00 AM he proceeded for General Hospital, Pratapgarh where he
recorded the statement of Madangir and registered the crime.
On the other hand, on behalf of the accused persons two
witnesses were examined to put forth a defence that on account of
the illicit relationship of Madangir with the wife of Mangi Lal, they
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
were falsely implicated in the case by Madangir. D.W.1 Narbhay
Singh tendered evidence to the effect that there was a serious
dispute between Mangi Lal and the accused persons for the reason
that the wife of Mangi Lal had several illicit relationships. D.W.1
further stated that the visitors to Babli Bai who was the wife of
Mangi Lal had been giving threats to Mangi Lal. He further stated
that Madangir had illicit relationship with the wife of Mangi Lal.
D.W.2-Amriya who was a neighbour of Mangi Lal stated in the
Court that Madangir had friendly relationship with Babli Bai who
had fled away with another man in the past.
6. In Sessions Case No.139 of 1999, the District and Sessions
Judge at Pratapgarh recorded his finding that it was a dark night
and the story floated by the prosecution that Madangir had seen
the accused persons was doubtful. The trial Judge recorded this
finding on the basis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
He has also referred to the other evidence and held that Mangi Lal
and Madangir had consumed liquor with Dalpat Singh. This fact is
corroborated by the Postmortem Examination Report of
Dr. Narendra Swaroop Mathur who found presence of alcohol in
the stomach of Mangi Lal. The trial Judge has also referred to the
prosecution story regarding dispute between Mangi Lal and Panna
Lal. Furthermore, the recovery witnesses P.W.3 Dalpat Singh and
P.W.4 Gopal Singh did not support the prosecution story that crime
articles were recovered on the information given to the police by
the accused persons.
7. In a criminal case, wherever a plea to false implication is
taken by the accused person the testimony of the prosecution
witness is examined with due care and caution as indicated by the
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh" 2011
(4) SCC 324. We would also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Masalti v. State of U.P." 1964 SCR (8) 133,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated the approach to be
adopted by the criminal Court as under:
".......14. Mr. Sawhney has then argued that where witnesses
giving evidence in a murder trial like the present are shown
to belong to the faction of victims, their evidence should not
be accepted, because they are prone to involve falsely
members of the rival faction out of enmity and partisan
feeling. There is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to
appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or
interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such
evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the
evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the Court as
genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence
is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account.
But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the
ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.
Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders
are committed as a result of enmity between such factions,
criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.
The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground
that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much
evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be
cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such
evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be
accepted as correct. ....."
8. Having regard to the test applied in the criminal case that
the prosecution is required to prove its case to the hilt, it becomes
a duty of the Court to see that wherever a reasonable doubt is
created on the prosecution story a decision is not rendered in a
mechanical manner. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act
prescribes the procedure for impeaching the creditworthiness of a
witness (i) by the evidence of persons who testify that they from
[2025:RJ-JD:4511-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-384/2002]
their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of
credit, (ii) by proof that the witness has been bribed or has
accepted the offer of a bribe or has received any other corrupt
inducement to give his evidence, and, (iii) by proof of former
statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is
liable to be contradicted. And, under section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the character of a witness becomes relevant. The
character of Madangir has been seriously challenged by the
defence and it has come on the record that he had illicit
relationship with the wife of Mangi Lal. This is also a defence put
forth by the accused persons that some unknown persons had
assaulted Mangi Lal and Madangir and Mangi Lal could not identify
them as it was a dark night. In our opinion, the trial Judge rightly
disbelieved the evidence tendered by P.W.1 Madangir and there
was no other substantial evidence produced by prosecution to
connect the respondents with the murder of Mangi Lal and assault
of Madangir.
9. After having examined the materials available on record, we
do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the judgment
rendered in Sessions Case No.139 of 1999.
10. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2002 is dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
62-/Devesh Thanvi/Surabhi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
