Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Tiku Ram And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:25341-Db) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 116/2002
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Tiku Ram s/o Gordhan Ram
2. Smt. Gopudi w/o Birma Ram
Both are resident of Bungadi, P.S. Bhojasar (Phalodi), Dist.
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
23/05/2025
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 29.08.2001
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No.11/2000 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Tikuram and Anr.), whereby the accused-respondents were
acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302, 458
and 120-B IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2002.
3. The brief facts of the case, as presented before this Court,
are that the complainant, Rawat Ram, lodged a police report on
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
02.05.2000 at around 10:00 AM, stating that at approximately
2:00 AM the previous night, cries for help were heard coming from
the dhani of Ratturam. At that time, Gordhan Ram, Binja Ram,
Dula Ram, and Tiku Ram were present nearby. Gopudi, the
daughter-in-law of Ratturam, stated that while she was inside the
house with her mother-in-law, Meera, two men entered and
assaulted her mother-in-law, resulting in her death.
3.1 Based on the above information, an FIR was registered at
the concerned police station against the accused-respondents for
offences under Sections 302 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC), and investigation was initiated accordingly. Upon completion
of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-
respondents, and the trial commenced.
3.2 During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses (PW-1 to PW-17) and submitted 51 documents into
evidence. Thereafter, the accused-respondents were examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),
wherein they denied the allegations, claimed innocence, and
asserted false implication in the criminal case, opting to contest
the charges.
3.3 After hearing the arguments of both parties and considering
the evidence and material on record, the learned Trial Court
acquitted the accused-respondents by way of the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 29.08.2001. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-State.
4. Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor representing
the appellant-State, submits that there was a clear motive behind
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
the incident, wherein Tiku Ram, in collusion with Gopudi, allegedly
assaulted Gopudi's mother-in-law due to their illicit relationship,
resulting in her death.
4.1 The learned Public Prosecutor further contends that an axe
was recovered, the crime was evident, and the motive was well
established. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial
Court that no offence was made out was erroneous. However, the
learned Public Prosecutor was unable to refute the fact that crucial
witnesses, particularly the son of the deceased Meera and
husband of the accused Gopudi, turned hostile. Additionally, Rattu
Ram (PW-9), the husband of the deceased Meera and father-in-
law of the accused Gopudi, also turned hostile.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Anita Gehlot, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents, while opposing
the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits
that it was Gopudi herself who informed others that two unknown
persons had assaulted the deceased before she passed away.
Based on her statement, the FIR was lodged. The other individuals
mentioned were neither eyewitnesses nor did they support the
prosecution's version, as they were not in a position to do so.
5.1 PW-1 (Rawat Ram), despite being the author of the FIR,
made contradictory statements. PW-6, another key witness,
Ghewar Ram, was also unable to provide any direct evidence
about the incident; in fact, he stated that he had not heard
anything about any alleged relationship between Tiku Ram and
Gopudi. PW-7, the son of the deceased Meera and husband of
Gopudi--on whom the prosecution's case primarily relied--denied
the allegation that his wife murdered his mother. He also denied
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
any knowledge of an illicit relationship between his wife, Gopudi,
and Tiku Ram.
5.2 PW-9 (Rattu Ram), another crucial witness and the husband
of the deceased Meera, deposed that Tiku Ram was the son of his
elder brother but also denied any motive or illicit relationship
between Gopudi and Tiku Ram. He too turned hostile. Although he
attempted to state that Gopudi alone committed the murder and
that Tiku Ram was not present, this version contradicts the
prosecution's case and weakens its consistency.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
7. The whole prosecution case hinges upon the story that there
were illicit relations between the accused-respondents. Upon a
close scrutiny of the depositions made by the prosecution
witnesses, more particularly, Ghewar Ram (PW-6), Birma Ram
(PW-7) (husband of accused-Gopudi), Rattu Ram (PW-9)
(husband of deceased Meera), Dula Ram (PW-10) (cousin
brother-in-law of accused-Gopudi) and Binja Ram (PW-11)
(uncle of accused-Tiku Ram) have turned hostile and they
unequivocally denied to have any knowledge of illicit relations
between the accused-respondents Tiku Ram and Smt. Gopudi.
Furthermore, the prosecution has based its case upon
circumstantial evidence that there were foot marks on the place of
incident but has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, this Court after examining the record of the case and after
hearing counsel for the parties and particularly the depositions of
PW-7 (Birma Ram)and PW-9 (Rattu Ram), does not find it a fit
case for any kind of interference.
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
8. 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;
(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;
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
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."
9. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondent under Sections 302, 458 and 120-B 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
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
12.1 Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(B.N.S.S.), 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 each, 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 they would be called upon to do so.
[2025:RJ-JD:25341-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-116/2002]
12.2 All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of
the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
12.3 This Court is thankful to Ms. Anita Gehlot, who has rendered
her assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-
respondents, in the present adjudication.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
107-ajayS/abhishek-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
