Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Sohan Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:23097-Db) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 929/2002
State of Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Sohan Lal S/o Chetan Ram, B/c Chaudhary, resident of 4-H-56,
Kudi Bhagatasani, Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Accused-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dhaka with
Mr. S.S. Gour.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
13/05/2025
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 15.07.2002
passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.2/2002 (State of Rajasthan Vs.
Sohan Lal), whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the
charges against him under Sections 302 & 309 IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 2002 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2002.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court are that
on 29.01.2002 at around 1:30 PM, accused Sohan Lal approached
Hema Ram (PW-12) and Devi Singh (PW-13) and informed them
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
that due to acute financial distress, he had killed his wife and two
daughters and had also attempted suicide by cutting the veins of
his wrist with a blade. Accused Sohan Lal requested Hema Ram
and Devi Singh to take him to the hospital. Initially, skeptical of
his claim, Hema Ram and Devi Singh proceeded to accused Sohan
Lal's residence, where they found lifeless bodies of his wife and
two daughters.
4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR
bearing No.24/2002 was registered before the concerned Police
Station against the accused-respondent for the offences under
Sections 302 & 309 IPC and the investigation commenced
accordingly. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against
the accused-respondent, and the trial commenced accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced as many
as 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) and got exhibited documents
(Exhibit P-1 to P-34), whereafter, the accused-respondent was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded
innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.
6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties
as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record,
the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent namely
Sohan Lal vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
15.07.2002, against which, the present appeal has been preferred
on behalf of the appellant-State.
7. Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor representing the
appellant-State, informs that on 29.01.2002 at around 1:30 PM,
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
the accused-Sohan Lal went to PW-12 Hema Ram and PW-13 Devi
Singh and informed them that since he was suffering from
extreme poverty, therefore, he had killed his wife and both the
daughters and also slashed the veins of his wrist.
7.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further avers that the cause of
death and the medical evidence clearly corroborate the incident in
question. He also submits that the motive of the accused-
respondent behind the crime in question is clearly established.
7.2. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the accused-
respondent was rightly tried under Sections 302 & 309 IPC,
emphasizing that the whole incident clearly demonstrates that
frustration arising from poverty resulted in commission of the
crime.
7.3 Learned Pubic Prosecutor drew the Court's attention to the
testimony of PW-14 Bhagwat Singh, the investigating officer,
wherein the investigation officer has supported the prosecution's
case while giving credence to the testimonies of Hema Ram and
Devi Singh.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Dhaka with Mr. S.S. Gour,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-respondent, while
opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
appellant-State, submits that it is a clear case of total collapse of
the prosecution's case as the critical witnesses namely PW-3 Kalu
Ram, PW-5 Sher Singh, PW-7 Ram Swaroop, PW-9 Govind Singh,
PW-12 Hema Ram and PW-13 Devi Singh have all turned hostile
during the trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
10. This Court observes that the crime in question has been
alleged to have committed by the accused-respondent, owing to
the financial distress; not only, allegedly, the accused-respondent
killed his wife and two daughters, but also he attempted to
commit suicide by slashing the veins of his wrist.
11. This Court further observes that PW-12 Hema Ram and
PW-13 Devi Singh were the critical witnesses, who had contributed
to the filing of the FIR based on the information provided by the
accused-respondent. However, both witnesses have subsequently
turned hostile during the trial.
12. This Court also observes that when the FIR itself is not
supported by any cogent testimony and there exists no other
evidence indicating culpability, the learned Trial Court had no other
option, but to conclude the trial, while acquitting the accused-
respondent, and rightly so. The fact that critical witnesses have
turned hostile is relevant to this Court's conclusion that the
impugned judgment is perfectly justified in law. From the
inception i.e. from the FIR, to the site plan (Naksha Mauka), to
the recorded statements (Taid Bayan), and to the recovery memo
(Fard Baramadgi), all aspects have resulted in the collapse of
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and thus, cannot
contribute to the process of adjudication for the purpose of
conviction. The reasoning given by the learned Trial Court in its
concise judgment is comprehensible, as the prosecution has
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
miserably failed to connect the chain of events, although the
incident itself remain proved, without attributing culpability to any
individual.
13. Thus, in the overall factual matrix and the circumstances
surrounding the case, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated
15.07.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be
anything, which would call for intervention of this Court to reverse
the same.
14. 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;
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
(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."
15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondent under Sections 302 & 309 IPC, which in the given
circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
18.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
[2025:RJ-JD:23097-DB] (8 of 8) [CRLA-929/2002]
(B.N.S.S.), 2023, the accused-respondent is directed to furnish a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the
like amount, 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-respondent, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as
he would be called upon to do so.
18.2. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of
the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
32-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
