Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Megha And Ors on 22 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 103/2000
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Megha son of Lalu
2. Dhanna son of Lalu
3. Mohan son of Lalu
4. Hakra son of Punja
5. Mohan son of Chatra
6. Laxman son of Roopa
7. Laxman son of Bhara
8. Hariesh son of Laxman
9. Shanta son of Mangla
10. Kalu son of Bhara
All resident of Kharber Fala Nadi P.S. Rishbdev, Distt- Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on : 12/05/2025
Pronounced on : 22/05/2025
(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State
assailing the judgment dated 20.10.1997 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur, in Sessions
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
Case No.37/1996(297/95), whereby the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the present respondents from all the charges levelled
against them, while extending the benefit of doubt.
2. It is noted that the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were tried for
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 323/149
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The respondent No.1 was tried for
offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149 IPC and the
remaining respondents were tried for offences under Sections 147,
148, 323/149, and 302/149 IPC.
3. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged by one
Prabhulal (PW-2), alleging that at about 2:30 PM on 24.10.1995,
while he and others were celebrating the festival of Deepawali, a
verbal altercation occurred between Amra (son of Pema) and
Megha (son of Lalu Meena). This altercation escalated into a
physical fight during which Megha, who was having feta (a blunt
object) in his hand gave a severe blow to Amra and he fell down.
4. It is stated by the Prabhulal (informant) that he along with
Ramlal intervened in between Amra and Megha and managed to
snatch the weapon from Megha. It is further alleged that Megha
then left the scene and went back his home, however, later
returned back with the present respondents, who were armed with
stones, lathis, knives, and other weapons. The respondents
allegedly attacked the complainant and others.
5. Mohan (son of Lalu) is said to have caused knife injuries to
Brahma (son of Hakra). On receiving such injuries Brahma fell
down and the stabbed injuries leading to protrusion of intestines
and immediate death. It is stated that Laxman, son of Lalu,
intervened in an attempt to stop the fight, however, Mohan, son of
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
Chatra, who was also carrying a knife, inflicted a stab injury to
Laxman's stomach. Upon receiving the injury, Laxman also
collapsed. Both Brahma and Laxman succumbed to their injuries
and died on the spot. On the basis of said information, the report
of investigation was carried out.
6. The prosecution cited Prabhulal (PW-2), Babulal (PW-5), and
Amra (PW-8) as eyewitnesses.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits
that the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the
prosecution having established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The following contentions were made:
(i) The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained.
(ii) The statements of the witnesses were fully corroborated by
the medical evidence; therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve
the prosecution story.
(iii) The trial Court committed an error in giving undue
importance to the recovery of the knife, as the recovery has no
relevance when there is direct evidence from witnesses who saw
the incident.
(iv) It is a case of double murder in day light and accused
respondents who armed with knives and other weapon should be
convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
and fervently opposed the submission of the State counsel and
stated that the trial Court was right in extending the benefit of
doubt to the accused persons for the following reasons:
(i) The panchnama was prepared prior to registration of the FIR.
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
(ii) The recovery witnesses, mainly Laxman and Daulatram,
were not examined in the Court.
(iii) Ramlal was not examined despite being eyewitness.
(iv) Serious contradiction in the submission of Investigating
Officer.
(v) Babulal (PW-5) despite being eyewitness was not shown to
be present at the time of incident in the panchnama.
(vi) Serious contradiction were found in the statements of
eyewitnesses i.e. Prabhulal and Amra.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
10. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that a perusal of the
original record reflects overwritings in certain exhibits. The date
and time have been altered in Exhibits 8, 9, 10, Ex.D-2, and the
'फर्द' (fard) information prepared under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. These interpolations and overwritings in the
documents themselves create serious doubt about the
prosecution's story.
11. As per the prosecution's story, the incident occurred at
approximately 2:30 PM on 24.10.1995. It is stated that an oral
report was made to the police authorities at around 4:30 PM on
the same day. The official records reveal that the panchnama for
the body of Laxman was prepared shortly thereafter, at 4:45 PM,
followed by the panchnama for Brahma at 5:30 PM. Subsequently,
the fard mauka (site inspection report) was prepared at 6:15 PM
on the same date.
12. On perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the same was
registered at 9:00 PM on 24.10.1995. According to the statements
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
of the Investigating Officer, Jagdish Pancholi (PW-10), he visited
the site of the incident based on telephonic information. This
sequence of events clearly indicates that the FIR was lodged with
certain improvements, and the timeline raises doubts, particularly
as the panchnama was prepared prior to the registration of the
FIR.
13. The panchnama and other exhibits, as mentioned above,
further reveal not only overwriting but also apparent manipulation,
as indicated by the ink used. A perusal of original panchnama
clearly shows that FIR Number i.e. 303 and time i.e. 4:45 PM is
written while using different ink (pen) and appear to be inserted
later.
13.1. It is noteworthy that the panchnama, prepared at 4:45
PM on 24.10.1995, does not specify any particular role of Mohan
(son of Lalu) or Mohan (son of Chatra). The panchnama, prepared
on the submission of Prabhulal who narrated the incident, does
not clarify whether Mohan (son of Lalu) or Mohan (son of Chatra)
were armed with any weapons during the incident.
14. Surprisingly, after the improvements were made in the FIR,
it was mentioned that the knife injuries, which resulted in the
deaths of Laxman and Brahma, were caused by stab wounds. It
was further stated that these injuries were inflicted by Mohan (son
of Lalu) and Mohan (son of Chatra).
15. The aforementioned facts clearly indicate that the
prosecution's story, based on the documents presented, is highly
questionable.
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
16. Upon perusal of the statements of Amra (PW-8) and
Prabhulal (PW-2), it is evident that there are serious
contradictions regarding the manner in which the incident
occurred, particularly when the statements of the said two
witnesses are read conjointly.
16.1. Prabhulal (PW-2), who is stated to be an eyewitness,
has mentioned in both the FIR and his statement that the incident
transpired in two distinct parts. Firstly, there was a heated
exchange between Amra and Megha, during which Megha
allegedly struck Amra with a feta and thereafter, Prabhulal and
Ramlal intervened and managed to snatch the feta from Megha,
after which Megha went home. The second part of the incident
occurred later when Megha, accompanied by other accused
persons, returned to the scene, armed with knives, lathis, and
stones. He further states that Mohan (son of Lalu), who was
carrying a knife, stabbed Brahma, causing fatal injuries that led to
his death. Upon witnessing this, Laxman attempted to intervene
but was also stabbed by Mohan (son of Chatra), who was similarly
armed with a knife.
16.2. In contrast, Amra (PW-8), who is also cited as an
eyewitness, provides an entirely different version of events. He
asserts that both incidents occurred simultaneously and that, by
the time he sustained injuries inflicted by Megha, the stabbings of
Laxman and Brahma had already occurred. This version directly
contradicts the version of Prabhulal (PW-2). The inconsistencies
between the statements of Amra and Prabhulal regarding the
sequence and manner of the incident raise substantial doubts
about the credibility and reliability of the prosecution's story.
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
17. On scrutiny of the statement given by the Prabhulal(PW-2),
it is noted that he specifically asserts that no telephonic call was
made to the police after the incident and that the police arrived at
the scene only after he orally informed them at the police station.
However, this conversation of Prabhulal is doubtful, as the
Investigating Officer (PW-10) stated that he reached the site of
the incident after receiving a telephone call along with other police
personnel. This inconsistency further raises doubts about the
prosecution's story, as it is not supported by concrete evidence
which could connect the chain of events and make the
prosecution's story trust worthy.
18. Additionally, the fard information prepared under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act contains overwriting with regard to the
date, raising doubts about the authenticity of the documents
prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is also noteworthy that
Babulal (PW-5) claimed to have been present at the scene of the
incident and stated that he intervened to prevent the fight.
However, the statement of Prabhulal does not support with his
previous version, as neither the FIR/his oral information to the
police/ statement before the police under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C., nor his testimony in court mentions Babulal's presence at
the scene or any intervention on his part to prevent the altercation
between the accused respondents and Amra, Laxman, Brahma,
and others.
19. The learned trial Court has minutely examined the record
and observed serious discrepancies in the evidence produced on
behalf of the prosecution. It has also taken note of the
manipulations made by the Investigating Agency, which cast
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
serious doubt on the genuineness of the documents relied upon by
the prosecution. Upon a thorough analysis of the entire evidence
on record, including the contradictions in the statements of the so-
called eyewitnesses, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that
the prosecution had completely failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
20. As a matter of fact, the overall prosecution story gives the
clear impression that the Investigating Agency did not conduct the
investigation in a fair and impartial manner. Consequently, the
learned Trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused persons and acquitted them of the charges.
21. 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;
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
(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."
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
22. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondent Nos. 3 and 5 under Sections 147, 148, 302, and
323/149 IPC, accused-respondent No.1 under Sections 147, 148,
323 and 302/149 IPC and the remaining respondents under
Sections 147, 148, 323/149, and 302/149 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 witnesses 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.
23. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23157-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLA-103/2000]
24. 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.
25. In view of the discussion made above, the instant appeal is
dismissed and the judgment dated 20.10.1997 passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur, in
Sessions Case No.37/1996(297/95) is hereby affirmed.
26. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of
the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.
27. This Court is thankful to Ms. Anjali Kaushik, who has
rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
accused-respondent, in the present adjudication.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Ashutosh-40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
