Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Sawai Singh And Ors on 22 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 615/2003

State of Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. Sawai Singh S/o Shri Tog Singh
2. Bhojraj Singh S/o Hal Singh
3. Maha Singh S/o Hal Singh
4. Hal Singh S/o Shri Tog Singh
all by caste Rajput, R/o Anandgarh, Police Station Pugal, District
Bikaner, (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
For Respondent(s)            :     Ms. Anjali Kaushik for
                                   Mr. S.K. Verma



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reserved on: 24/04/2025 Pronounced on: 22/05/2025 Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:

1. The present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved against the

judgment dated 13.09.2002 passed by Shri Om Prakash Gupta

RHJS, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in

Sessions Case No.152/2001 (State of Rajasthan vs. Sawai Singh &

Ors.), whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused-

respondents, Sawai Singh and Ors. for offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148 & 302, read with 149, 325, read with 149, 307

and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C.

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

Facts of the case:

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Bhoor Singh, son of

Khet Singh, submitted his Parcha Bayan to the police officials on

12.04.1996 at around 1:15 P.M., stating that they had taken one

murabba (agricultural field) on contract for a period of one year.

This murabba was previously cultivated by Sawai Singh, son of

Tog Singh. It was further stated that the scheduled water turn for

the field was fixed for Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. Bhoor

Singh mentioned that his brother, Shri Dan Singh, had gone to the

field at around 6:30 A.M., and thereafter, Bhoor Singh, along with

Panch Singh, proceeded towards the murabba at around 8:30 A.M.

While travelling approximately 2 kilometers, they saw a tractor

belonging to Saheb Ram Godara approaching from the opposite

direction, which was being driven by Dilip Godara, son of Saheb

Ram.

3. It was further stated that the tractor came to a halt, and

Bhoor Singh saw his brother, Dan Singh, lying injured inside the

tractor. Dan Singh informed him that at around 7:10 A.M., when

he had reached the field to avail their scheduled water turn, he

observed Sawai Singh, Khan Singh, and Bhojraj Singh diverting

water into their own field. Upon raising an objection, Bhojraj Singh

allegedly grabbed and stretched his testicles, after which Khan

Singh and Sawai Singh began assaulting him with fists. It was

further stated that Dilip Godara then arrived at the scene and

intervened, helping Dan Singh free himself from the assault.

Thereafter, Dilip Godara placed him in the tractor.

4. It was averred by Bhoor Singh in the Parcha Bayan that he

instructed Dan Singh to proceed directly to the Police Station in

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

the tractor, while he and Panch Singh went to the agricultural field.

They reached the field around 8:30 A.M., where they saw Sawai

Singh standing with a lathi, Hal Singh with a dhariya, Khan Singh

with a kassi, Bhojraj Singh with a lathi, and Maha Singh also

armed with a lathi. It was alleged that Sawai Singh questioned

how they could have taken the murabba on contract over and

above them and then incited the other accused to kill Bhoor Singh

and Panch Singh. Following this, Sawai Singh struck Panch Singh

on the head with a lathi. Hal Singh then inflicted a blow with a

dhariya, hitting Panch Singh on the back of the head, after which

Bhojraj Singh also struck Panch Singh on the head with a lathi,

causing heavy bleeding and resulting in Panch Singh collapsing on

the ground. Bhoor Singh further stated that when he attempted to

intervene, all five accused began assaulting him as well. Khan

Singh tried to strike him on the head with a lathi, but he blocked

the blow with his hand, causing an injury to his hand.

4.1 It was further averred by Bhoor Singh in his Parcha Bayan

that, in the meantime, Sawai Singh, son of Surat Singh Rathore

whose agricultural field was situated on the opposite side came

running to the site. At that point, all five accused began assaulting

Shri Panch Singh, who was lying on the ground, using lathis, and

thereafter fled towards the fields. Bhoor Singh stated that he,

along with Sawai Singh Rathore, lifted the injured Panch Singh,

placed him in a camel cart, and proceeded towards Village

Anandgarh. On the way, they encountered Raju Singh Shekhawat

driving a tractor. Upon requesting him to stop, they transferred

Panch Singh into the tractor with assistance from Raju Ram Jat,

who also arrived to help. While on the way, they saw a jeep

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

belonging to the BJP party, which was being used for election

campaigning. They then shifted Panch Singh into the jeep and

proceeded to the village. Subsequently, Gopal Singh, brother of

Bhoor Singh, also joined them, and they all proceeded to

Khajuwala Hospital. Upon arrival, the doctor commenced

treatment of Panch Singh; however, he was declared dead shortly

thereafter. It was also mentioned that by the time they reached

the hospital, Dan Singh, Chhatar Singh, and Om Ji had also

arrived. Based on the Parcha Bayan, the police registered an FIR

against all five accused persons namely, Sawai Singh, Hal Singh,

Khan Singh, Bhojraj Singh, and Maha Singh.

5. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation, during

which the site of the incident was inspected and blood-stained soil

along with other samples were collected. The accused were

arrested, and alleged recoveries were made at their instance.

Statements of various witnesses were recorded during the course

of the investigation. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet

against four individuals namely, Sawai Singh, Bhojraj Singh, Maha

Singh, and Hal Singh. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed

charges against the accused. During the course of the trial, 18

witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 37

documents were exhibited in evidence. The accused were

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

during which accused Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh asserted

their innocence and claimed that the case had been instituted

against them solely to counter a case that they themselves had

filed. They further contended that they had been falsely

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

implicated. In support of their defence, 8 documents were

exhibited.

5.1 The learned Trial Court, after considering the record and

hearing arguments from both sides, acquitted all four accused

persons of the offences alleged against them vide judgment dated

13.09.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of

Rajasthan filed the present leave to appeal.

5.2 However, this Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated

30.05.2003, granted leave to the State Government to prosecute

the appeal only against accused Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh.

The Court gave a categorical finding that no offence was made out

against Hal Singh and Maha Singh, noting, inter alia, that Bhoor

Singh had not attributed any specific injury to them, among other

considerations. Accordingly, the present appeal is confined solely

to examining the role of Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh in the

incident, and whether, based on the evidence on record, the

prosecution has succeeded in proving their guilt beyond

reasonable doubt.

Argument on behalf of appellant-State:

6. Laying a challenge to the above-mentioned judgment, the

learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Trial Court

failed to consider that the present case was based upon the

testimony of eye witnesses, and that the evidence of Bhoor Singh

P.W.-1, Dan Singh P.W.-3, Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh

P.W.-7 was very clear, consistent, and pointed unerringly towards

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the

learned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved their testimony and,

without any justifiable basis, concluded that they were not an

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

eye-witnesses to the incident. It has further been argued that the

version of the above-mentioned witnesses is further fortified by

the testimony of the Dr. Shyam Kachawaha P.W.-9 as also the

version given by Rajiram P.W.-11 and the statement of Police

Officials i.e. Malluram P.W.-15 and Devkishan P.W.-17, the

Investigating Officer.

7. It has further been argued that the accused had a clear

motive to murder the deceased, and that the case involves the

formation of an unlawful assembly, wherein the accused persons

had gathered with the common object of assaulting and murdering

the deceased. It has further been argued that the recovery of the

blood-stained weapon of offence from the possession of the

accused also completes the chain and this is a relevant

consideration which has been completely overlooked by the

learned Trial Court.

Argument on behalf of counsel for the respondent-accused:

8. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel for

the respondents, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly

appreciated the entire body of evidence on record and, on that

basis, correctly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove

its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She

submitted that the counsel for the appellant-State has not been

able to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the findings

recorded by the Trial Court. It was further argued that, with

regard to the alleged recoveries, neither the Forensic Science

Laboratory (FSL) report was exhibited, nor was it established that

the recovered weapons were blood-stained. Additionally, it was

submitted that no question pertaining to the FSL report was put to

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. It has further been argued that the alleged recovery from

open houses where the I.O. himself has admitted that various

persons were residing and the area was not in an exclusive

possession or knowledge of the accused. Furthermore, the

recovery has not been proved as the independent witnesses have

not been examined and in all the recoveries whatsoever, Chhatar

Singh has been kept as a witness, who admittedly is the brother

of the deceased, and thus, is a related witness and his testimony

cannot be relied upon for proving the alleged recovery.

10. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the

respondent-accused that Dilip Godara P.W.-8 in whose tractor Dan

Singh was taken and whose presence has been shown at the site,

as also Sawai Singh an alleged eye-witness and Rajveer Singh, an

important witness whose name appears even in the Parcha Bayan,

have been declared hostile and have not supported the version of

the prosecution. Not only this, but another important witness,

Atte Singh, who was specifically named by Dan Singh as an eye-

witness to the incident of the assault upon him, has not been

examined by the prosecution, for reasons best known to them.

This, coupled with the fact that there are various inconsistencies in

the statements of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, Chimandan P.W.-4 and

Chandan Singh P.W.-7, indicates that Chandan Singh and

Chimandan were not eye-witnesses to the incident, and further,

that Bhoor Singh has not stated the facts correctly and has made

an attempt to falsely implicate the accused-respondents. It was

submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly examined each

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

and every aspect of their testimony and has arrived at a definite

conclusion that their evidence does not inspire confidence.

10.1 It has further been submitted that another significant aspect

of the matter is that the prosecution have failed to explain the

injuries sustained by the accused/respondents. The existence of

the cross-case has been admitted by Investigating Officer,

Sayar Singh (P.W.-6), who, after investigation in cross case had

found Bhoor Singh along with four other persons guilty of offences

punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 325 of the IPC. The

medical evidence, as well as the arrest memos of the accused,

clearly establish that they had sustained injuries. The failure of the

prosecution to offer any explanation for these injuries is a

significant omission, and on this ground as well, the learned Trial

Court has rightly held that the accused were not guilty of the

offences alleged against them. The learned counsel for the

respondent-accused have thus asserted that the judgment passed

by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned and does not call for

any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

Analysis and reasoning:

11. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned

counsel for both the sides and after perusal of the record, we will

deal with each and every piece of evidence through which the

prosecution has sought to connect the accused with the crime in

question.

(i) Eye Witnesses- As far as the 'eye witnesses' are concerned

in the present case the prosecution has tried to bring home the

guilt against the accused based on evidence of alleged

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

eye-witnesses, Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, Dan Singh P.W.-3, Chimandan

P.W.-4, Chandan Singh P.W.-7 and Sawai Singh P.W.-10.

Needless to observe that, insofar as Sawai Singh is

concerned, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and

has not supported its version. As regards Dan Singh, he is not an

eye-witness to the second incident but is rather an alleged injured

witness in relation to the first incident pertaining to assault upon

him. However, he has specifically deposed that the accused

Bhojraj Singh, Sawai Singh, and Khan Singh surrounded him,

whereupon Bhojraj Singh caught hold of his testicles, and

thereafter, all three assaulted him with fists. He has further stated

that he sustained injuries on his shoulder, back and various parts

of his body, and that he had shown these injuries to the doctor

during medical examination. It was further stated that, upon

witnessing the incident, Atte Singh arrived at the site and freed

him from the grip of the accused. He further stated that, at the

relevant time, none of the three accused were carrying any

weapons, whether lathis or otherwise. An important aspect of the

matter is that, firstly Atte Singh has not been examined by the

prosecution, who was a star eye-witness and could had proved the

case of the prosecution. Secondly though Dan Singh has been

shown to be an injured eye-witness to the first incident, however,

his statement does not inspire confidence and the nature of injury

could not be proved by the corresponding statement of the

examining doctor i.e. Shyam Kachawaha P.W.-9, who had prepared

the injury report Exh. P-25, wherein he had specifically stated that

no injury was found on body of Dan Singh. Thus, the version given

by Dan Singh as regard the first incident does not inspire any

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

confidence whatsoever and the learned Trial Court has rightly held

that the accused cannot be implicated in any manner with the

incident as narrated by Dan Singh.

As far as Chandan Singh P.W.-7 and Chimandan P.W.-4 are

concerned, a bare perusal of the Parcha Bayan Exh. P-1 given by

Bhoor Singh as also the statement of Bhoor Singh given during

the course of investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., i.e.

Exh. D-1 will reveal that the presence of both the above

mentioned witnesses has not been specified by Bhoor Singh and

he has only specified the presence of Sawai Singh (who has been

declared hostile by the prosecution itself).

This, coupled with the fact that the accounts of injuries and

the weapons allegedly used by the accused as stated by

Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 do not align with the

version given by Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, further casts doubt on the

consistency and liability of the prosecution's case. To elaborate,

Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 claims there were around five assailants,

whereas Chimandan P.W.-4 states there were only three. Bhoor

Singh P.W.-1 states that Sawai Singh assaulted the deceased

with a lathi, whereas Chimandan P.W.-4 claims that Sawai Singh

used a jhaliya, and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 states that Sawai Singh

assaulted with a kassi. Furthermore, regarding the weapon used

by Bhojraj Singh, Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 says he used a lathi,

Chandan Singh P.W.-7 states he used a jhaliya, while Chimandan

P.W.-4 does not specify the weapon used by him.

There is a significant contradiction between the statements

of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 and Chimandan P.W.-4, as Chimandan

P.W.-4 states that Bhojraj Singh struck the deceased on the back

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

of the head with a lathi, causing him to fall, however, the

postmortem report does not reveal any injury on the back side of

the body of the deceased's head; instead, both injuries are located

adjacent to each other on the parietal bone. Not only this, but a

statement was also made by Chimandan P.W.-4 during the course

of his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Police

Officials Exh. D-4. In that statement, he claimed that he, along

with Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, and Dilip Godara, came running

to the spot after witnessing the incident. However, this version is

not supported by the accounts of other witnesses. Furthermore, in

his statement before the learned Trial Court, Chimandan P.W.-4

asserted that he was already present at the scene when the

incident occurred. This glaring contradiction between his Police

Officials statement and Court testimony casts serious doubt on his

credibility and raises questions about his reliability as an

eye-witness.

He rather gives the specific statements that after the

incident, he fainted and was unaware of what transpired

thereafter. He regained consciousness approximately two hours

later and then returned to his Dhani i.e., his house in the village.

He further stated that Sawai Singh came running from a distance

of approximately two murabbas, and that he, Sawai Singh, and

Chandan Singh reached the spot almost simultaneously, with a

distance of one murabba separating them from different

directions. Given that one murabba is approximately 825 feet, this

implies that Sawai Singh would have had to run nearly 1,650 feet

to reach the scene. As per his version, all three arrived together,

which casts serious doubt on the possibility of any of them truly

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

being an eye witness. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to

establish their presence at the scene at the time of the incident.

Turning to the statement of Chandan Singh P.W.-7, a perusal

of his testimony reveals that he stated he came running to the

spot when the scuffle began, and that Chimandan and

Dilip Godara also arrived at the scene at the same time. He further

stated that he could not see who delivered the lathi blow to the

deceased, and was unsure whether it was Bhojraj Singh or

someone else. He further stated that he became anxious during

the incident, was unable to see anything clearly, and did not know

who was struck or where the blows landed. He further stated that

at the time of the altercation between both parties, he was

approximately 150 pawda (i.e. 150x3 = 450 feet), away and

by the time he reached the spot, the fight had already concluded.

He further stated that he did not make any statement before the

police officials and categorically denied having given the statement

marked as Exh. D-7 in its entirety. He further stated that

Sawai Singh sustained injuries and that his blood was seen

dripping at the place of occurrence. This statement clearly

indicates that his version does not support the prosecution's

narrative as presented by Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 or Chimandan P.W.-

As far as Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 is concerned, a bare perusal of

his Parcha Bayan Exhibit P-1 and his statement recorded by the

police Exhibit B-1 reveals that he did not specify the presence of

any person other than Sawai Singh, son of Suraj Singh Chouhan,

at the place of occurrence. However, during the course of his

examination before the learned Trial Court, he appears to have

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

improved his version by attempting to project Chandan Singh

P.W.-7 and Chimandan P.W.-4 as eyewitnesses to the incident.

Even according to his own version, the deceased was allegedly

struck with five blows on the head and body. However, this claim

is not supported by the medical evidence. The postmortem report

Exhibit P-23, as well as the testimony of Dr. Shyam Kachawa

P.W.-9, leave no room for doubt that only two injuries were found

on the body of the deceased both located close to each other on

the parietal bone. Notably, no injury was found on the back side of

the head, contrary to the assertion made by Bhoor Singh in his

statement.

He further stated that all eye witnesses were already present

at the site when he arrived; however, this version is not supported

by the testimonies of Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, or Chimandan.

During the course of his examination, he further improved his

version by admitting that, in his earlier statement before the

Court, he had stated that the accused was carrying a lathi.

However, he later altered his testimony, claiming that it was not a

lathi but a dhariya a sharp-edged weapon and asserted that Maha

Singh had inflicted a blow with the dhariya on the right ear of the

deceased. He further stated that he was being assaulted and,

therefore, was not in a position to see as to who inflicted injuries

on Panch Singh after he fell down. He further admits that he had

wrongly stated in his Parcha Bayan that after Panch Singh fell

down, all the accused started assaulting him with lathi blows.

Interestingly, he stated that after Panch Singh fell down, Sawai

Singh and Suraj Singh arrived thereafter in a cart. He further

admitted to the lodging of a cross-case by the accused persons.

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

He further admitted that there were two to three blood spots at

the scene of occurrence and that Police had collected only one

sample. A perusal of his statement reveals significant

improvements and inconsistencies in relation to the number and

location of injuries, as compared to the postmortem report. It is

also evident that he has substantially altered his version from

what was initially recorded in his 'Parcha Bayan' Exhibit P-1 and

his statements made before the Police Officials under Section 161

of the Cr.P.C. He further admitted that after the deceased fell to

the ground, Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, and Chimandan arrived

at the scene, which in itself indicates that at least one of them was

an eye-witness. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the

fact that the statement of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 does not inspire

confidence. Furthermore, the presence of Chimandan P.W.-4 and

Chandan Singh P.W.-7 at the scene in question has not been

proved, and Sawai Singh P.W.10, has already turned hostile.

Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly treated them as not

being eyewitnesses and correctly did not rely upon their

testimony.

(ii) Information given by the accused-respondents under

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, regarding the recovery:

In the present case, the prosecution has also attempted to

establish the involvement of the accused based on the recovery

made pursuant to the alleged disclosure information provided by

the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this

regard, the prosecution has exhibited Exhibit P-15 to show the

recovery of a lathi from the accused, Sawai Singh, and Exhibit P-

19 to demonstrate the recovery of a lathi from Bhojraj Singh.

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

Three recoveries, namely the two mentioned above and one from

Khan Singh, are shown to have been made on the same day. A

common site plan, Exhibit P-17, was prepared to document the

recoveries. The alleged recovery memo indicates that the

recoveries were made in the presence of two allegedly

independent witnesses, Chhatar Singh and Megh Singh. Strangely,

neither the FSL report has been exhibited to establish the

presence of blood on the weapon in question, nor has the FSL

report been put to the accused during the course of their

statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Not only this, but one

of the recovery witnesses, Chhatar Singh, has been examined,

and he does not appear to be an independent witness. Rather, he

is a related witness, being the real brother of the deceased,

Panch Singh, as he himself admitted during the course of his

examination-in-chief. He further does not support the recovery,

stating in his testimony that the accused entered the house alone

while he (Chhatar Singh) and the police officials remained

standing outside in the angan. It was only after the accused

returned from inside the house with the alleged weapon that the

recovery memo was prepared. He further admits that at the time

of the recovery, the women and children of the accused were

present in the house, and that all the rooms in the house were

open. He also stated that there was no blood visible on the cloth

in which the alleged weapon was wrapped. He further stated that

he had questioned the police as to why he was being called

repeatedly for all the recoveries and for the preparation of various

other exhibits. This, coupled with the fact that no blood was found

or proven to have been found on the alleged weapon, renders the

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

recovery memo wholly unreliable. Consequently, the accused

persons cannot be linked to the offence on the basis of the alleged

recovery.

(iii) Injury on the accused-respondents: The prosecution

has failed to offer any explanation regarding the injuries sustained

by the accused. In contrast, the defence has demonstrated that a

cross-case was registered, in which the police filed a charge sheet

against Bhoor Singh and others for offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This,

coupled with the fact that during the preparation of the arrest

memos of accused Bhojraj Singh and Sawai Singh Exhibits P-29 &

P-30, it was recorded that both were injured, including head

injuries sustained by accused Sawai Singh as well as

Bhojraj Singh. However, no explanation has been provided

regarding these injuries. Even the injury reports, Exhibits D-8 and

D-9, presented by the defence, clearly show that the accused

sustained lacerated wound injuries on the forehead and occipital

region. However, the prosecution has failed to establish any such

justification. Even Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 admitted that the accused

sustained injuries, and at the time when the bloodstained soil was

collected, blood belonging to Sawai Singh was also found.

However, strangely, the Investigating Officer has acknowledged

collecting only one large sample from the alleged site of the

incident, without any affirmation as to whose blood sample it

actually was. The fact of the injury sustained by Sawai Singh and

the presence of his blood at the site has also been admitted by

P.W.7, Chandan Singh. Therefore, the lack of any explanation

regarding the injury significantly undermines the prosecution's

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

case. The learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the

prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

12. Consideration in Appeals Against Acquittal: The Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, while considering the

principles to be kept in mind during the hearing of an appeal against

acquittal, summarized the legal position as under:

8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised 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 re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3 The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating 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."

[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]

13. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is

clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the

judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a

misreading of the material available on record. Furthermore, this

is not a case where no other reasonable view is possible. In fact,

in the present case, the view pointing towards the guilt of the

accused is weak and improbable, whereas the alternative view

favouring the accused is much stronger and more plausible.

14. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there

is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court

dated 13.09.2002. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld,