State vs Jaswant And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1397 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Jaswant And Ors on 15 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

  [2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                     D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 703/1999

   State of Rajasthan
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                         Versus
   1. Jaswant s/o Modaram (abated on 15.09.2021)
   2. Maliya @ Malaram s/o Lik amaram
   3. Omiya @ Om Prakash s/o Sitaram (abated on 15.09.2021)
   4. Raju s/o Likhma ram
   5. Papu s/o Amarchand


   All residents of Chopra, Behind Katala Bazar, Bikaner.


   6. Balbeer Singh s/o Chainaram, r/o Pali District Mahendra Garh
   Hariyana,    at    present,      Sarkari       Naukar,        Police   Department,
   Constable, Bikaner
   Police Station Kotgate, Bikaner, District Bikaner.
                                                                      ----Respondent


   For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, P.P.
   For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Anirudh Vyas for Mr. Kaushal
                                     Gautam



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on 23/04/2025 Pronounced on 15/05/2025

Per Hon'ble Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati,J:

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the

judgment of acquittal dated 06.05.1998 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner, in Sessions Case

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

No.22/1996 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaswant & Ors.), whereby the

accused-respondents, namely, Jaswant and Omiya @ Om Prakash

were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302

IPC, in alternative, Section 302/149 IPC & Sections 147 & 148

IPC; accused-respondents, namely, Maliya @ Malaram, Raju and

Pappu, were acquitted under Section 302, in alternative, Sections

302/149 & 147 IPC and; accused-respondent Balbeer Singh was

acquitted under Section 120-B IPC.

1.2. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court

that accused-respondent No.1-Jaswant & accused-respondent

No.3 Omiya @ Om Prakash had expired, as reflected in the order

dated 15.09.2021, whereby, the instant appeal to the extent of

the said deceased respondents was ordered to stand abated.

Thus, the present appeal is surviving only qua accused-appellants

(surviving), namely, Maliya @ Malaram, Raju, Papu and Balbeer

Singh, the present adjudication is being made accordingly.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the

year 1996 and the present appeal has been pending since the year

1998.

3. Briefly stated, the facts as presented before this Court by the

learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-

State are that on 16.05.1996, at around 6:00 AM, one Smt.

Gauradevi, wife of Jhugan Kishore and mother of the deceased

Babura, submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-14) before the

Reserve Centre (Aarakshi Kendra), Kotgate, Bikaner, while

addressing the same to the Deputy Inspector General of Police,

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

Bikaner. In the said complaint, she alleged that her son Babura,

who then had been in judicial custody for approximately one and a

half years on charge of murder, was taken to PBM Hospital along

with nine other prisoners on 15.05.1996. While the police

personnel escorted all prisoners back to the jail, Babura was

allegedly taken separately by two police officers, amongst which

one was the accused Balbir Singh, to a liquor store where they

consumed alcohol and wandered with him the entire day.

3.1. She further stated that at around 12 noon on the same day,

Babura was brought by the said officers near the shop of Kallu

(PW-24), the deceased's brother, situated in front of Suraj Talkies,

and at the behest of the police officers, Babura obtained money

from Kallu. Subsequently, at around 6:00 PM, accused Balbir

Singh and another officer visited the residence of Gauradevi and

informed her that Babura had absconded from their custody, and

asked her to lodge a report with the police station, which she

refused to do.

3.2. Gauradevi additionally alleged that on the same day, her

niece went to a local shop, where Jaswant Mali and Baldev Mali,

who were wielding swords, threatened her to eliminate the entire

family. She further averred that Jaswant Mali, Baldev, Tolaram,

Sukhlal, Malia, Ashok, Omiya, Mahavir, Aashya, and Modaram, in

conspiracy with certain police officers, orchestrated the murder of

her son Babura. She specifically implicated accused Balbir Singh

and another unnamed officer for their involvement in the said

crime. In view of the gravity of these allegations, she prayed for a

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

thorough investigation and initiation of appropriate legal

proceedings based on her written complaint.

3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned information, FIR no.

127/96 (Ex.P. 15) was lodged at Aarakshi Kendra, Kotgate,

Bikaner against 11 accused persons under Sections 302, 147, 148,

149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code(in short "IPC") and

investigation began accordingly.

3.4. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

against 6 accused persons, namely, Jaswant, Malaram,

Omprakash, Raju and Pappu under Sections 302, 147, 148 and

149 and against Constable Balbir Singh under Section 120-B IPC.

3.5. The matter was committed to the Court of Session,

wherefrom the case was transferred to this Court.

4. During the course of trial, the evidence of 26 prosecution

witnesses (P.W. 1 to 26) were recorded and documents (Ex.P. 1 to

15) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence,

witness (D.W. 1) was produced and documents (Ex.D. 1 to 5) were

exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the accused-respondents

were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded

innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in

question.

5. Subsequently, after considering the submissions advanced by

both parties and evaluating the evidence and material available on

record, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated

06.05.1998, acquitted the accused-respondents, as above, vide

the impugned judgment dated 06.03.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellant-State is in appeal before this Court.

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submitted

the judgment of acquittal is not in accordance with law, as prior to

passing the same, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the

material and evidence available on record, inasmuch as there

were two eye-witnesses namely Shankarlal (PW.12) and Mohanlal

(PW. 23), who have categorically stated to have clearly seen the

accused-respondents committing the crime in question.

6.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that

Dr.Vayunandan (PW.17) corroborated the testimony of Dr. P.S.

Mathur (PW.16) who conducted the post-mortem on the body of

the deceased and have asserted presence of multiple injuries

caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

6.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that, based on the

disclosure statements of accused-respondents Jaswant and Omiya,

a blood-stained sword (Ex. P-23) and iron rod (Ex. P-25) were

recovered and sent for forensic examination, culminating in the

F.S.L. report dated 28.02.1997. It was contended that the learned

Trial Court failed to consider this report in the right perspective,

despite the recoveries corroborating the testimonies of the two

eye-witnesses who affirmed seeing the accused with such

weapons at the time of the commission of the offence.

6.2.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Kallu (PW-

24) testified the recovery of a stone and an alcohol bottle from the

scene of occurrence in his presence, yet the learned Trial Court

failed to consider this material evidence during adjudication.

6.3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Gauradevi

(PW-18) promptly informed the police at around 6:00 AM, upon

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

receiving information from Laxmi (PW-26) around 5:00 AM

regarding the discovery of Babura's body near Suraj Talkies. Such

immediacy in lodging the report indicates absence of deliberation

or afterthought and ought to have been duly appreciated by the

learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment.

6.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Nisha (PW-

19), sister of the deceased, deposed that on 15.05.1996 at around

11:00-11:30 PM, the accused persons arrived at their residence

armed with deadly weapons and threatened to kill Babura (now

deceased) while inquiring about his whereabouts. Her testimony is

corroborated by Pukhraj (PW-20), the deceased's maternal uncle.

The consistent depositions of both witnesses establish that the

accused-respondents were actively seeking the deceased with

clear intent and motive to commit the offence.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondents,

opposing the submissions of the appellant-State, highlighted

significant contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses:

I. Jamaldin (PW-2) deposed that he dropped accused-

respondent Balbir Singh near Railway Colony at around 4:00

PM and did not see him thereafter. In contrast, Kallu (PW-24)

stated that around 12:00 noon the same day, Balbir Singh

visited his shop with Babura (deceased), who, at Balbir

Singh's request, asked for Rs. 20/-. Notably, Jamaldin (PW-

2) made no mention of Babura accompanying Balbir Singh in

the taxi.

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

II. Jamaldin (PW-2) further deposed that he transported the

deceased and accused Balbir Singh by taxi to Sumermal's

residence in Rani Bazar, where the deceased returned after

about five minutes. However, neither Sumermal nor any

family member was examined to corroborate this assertion.

III. Jamaldin (PW-2) deposed that he transported the

deceased and accused Balbir Singh to the deceased's

residence around 12:00 PM, where the deceased stayed for

approximately 30 minutes. However, this claim finds no

support in the testimonies of Gauradevi (PW-18), Nisha (PW-

19), Lakshmi (PW-26), or Pukhraj (PW-20), none of whom

mentioned their arrival at that time. In contrast, Gauradevi

(PW-18) and Pukhraj (PW-20) specifically testified that Balbir

Singh alone visited their residence around 5:00-6:00 PM to

report Babura's alleged escape from custody.

7.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution

witnesses, namely, Kailash Panwar (PW.1), Shahjahan (PW.3),

Bhanwarlal (PW.4), Mukesh Kumar (PW.5), Jayantilal (PW.6),

Nehru Khan (PW. 7), Heeralal (PW. 8), Keshuram (PW.9), Lala

(PW.10), Bhanwarlal (PW.13), and Labhuram (PW.21), who have

been declared hostile.

7.2. Learned counsel further contended that the testimony of

eye-witness Shankarlal (PW-12) is unreliable for the purpose of

convicting the accused-respondents, as the witness admitted to

being under the influence of alcohol both at the time of the alleged

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

incident and while deposing before the Court. He also pointed out

the following material contradictions:

I. Although Shankarlal (PW-12) purportedly witnessed the

incident, he neither informed the police nor the family

members of the deceased. It was only after a delay of 10-12

days that he allegedly disclosed the occurrence to Pukhraj

(PW-20), which is not corroborated by the latter's testimony.

II. Shankarlal (PW-12), in his statement under Section 161

Cr.P.C., did not attribute possession of a talwar to accused

Jaswant, but as per Exhibit D-1, he stated that it was

accused Omiya who was armed with a talwar.

III. Shankarlal (PW-12) claimed to be driving a taxi bearing

registration number RJ F 756; however, as per Regional

Transport Office (RTO), Bikaner records and the testimony of

Surajprakash (DW-1), the said number corresponds to a

two-wheeler registered in the name of Abdul Kalam. Hence,

the testimony of PW-12 suffers from material

inconsistencies, rendering him an unreliable witness, wrongly

treated as an eye-witness by the learned Trial Court.

7.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of the

second eye-witness, Madanlal (PW-23), brother of the deceased,

is fraught with contradictions and thus, lacks credibility for

securing the conviction of the accused-respondents. The following

discrepancies were highlighted in support of this contention:

I. Madanlal (PW-23) deposed that on 15.05.1996, while leaving

for Pali from Bikaner, he witnessed five individuals assaulting

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

someone and identified all five accused as part of that group,

though he did not specify the victim's identity. He further

stated that he got to know about his brother Babura's death

nearly two months after the incident. However, in cross-

examination, he contradicted himself by asserting that he

received the information telephonically within 2-3 days of

reaching Pali. Additionally, Gauradevi (PW-18) testified that

Madanlal returned to Bikaner only 1.5 to 2 months after

Babura's death.

II. Madanlal (PW-23) further stated that on 15.05.1996, he

watched a movie before proceeding to the railway station for

his journey to Pali, and that the ticket was procured by Kallu

(PW-24), the son of Gauradevi (PW-18) and brother of the

deceased. However, neither Kallu (PW-24) nor Gauradevi

(PW-18) corroborated this claim in their respective

depositions.

7.4. Learned counsel further submitted that Shankarlal (PW.12)

and Madanlal (PW.23) were not eye-witnesses but were rather

chance-witnesses, who happened to be at the place of incident at

the relevant time.

7.5. Learned counsel further submitted that although Nisha (PW-

19) deposed that the accused persons, armed with deadly

weapons, arrived at the deceased's residence around 11:00-11:30

PM on 15.05.1996 and issued threats in the presence of the

family, Gauradevi (PW-18), the deceased's mother, omitted any

reference thereto and proximate incident in the FIR (Ex.P-14)

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

lodged on the next date (in morning). Such omission, as per

learned counsel, significantly undermines the credibility and

reliability of her testimony.

7.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the niece of the

deceased, who allegedly witnessed the accused persons armed

and was threatened by them near the shop on the preceding day,

was not examined as a prosecution witness. The omission to

produce such a material witness raises serious doubt regarding

the credibility of the prosecution's version of events.

7.7. Learned counsel further submitted with regard to the

recoveries made, that there is a doubt as to their authenticity for

the following reasons:

I. Kallu (PW-24) and Pukhraj (PW-20), being related to the

deceased, were interested witnesses to the recovery. Given

that the incident occurred in a public place, the absence of

any independent witness casts doubt on the credibility of the

said recovery.

II. The Investigating Officer (PW.25) admitted that Ex.P. 17 and

Ex.P. 21 show differing measurements of the stone recovered

from the incident site. Additionally, neither Kallu (PW.24) nor

Pukhraj (PW.20) raised an objection to the discrepancy in

measurements.

7.8. Learned counsel further submitted that Pushpadevi (PW.11),

the sole independent witness, testified that the deceased, Babura,

had a history of unlawfully entering private residences and

extorting money through intimidation. Police Inspector Sukhdev

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

Singh (PW.25) further stated that Babura was a registered history-

sheeter at the Kotgate Police Station, implicated in around 70-75

criminal cases, including assault, murder, robbery, and theft. In

support of this, the defence submitted a certified copy of the

judgment dated 21.01.1993 (Exhibit D-42), where Babura was

convicted under Sections 452, 392, 323 read with Section 34 of

the IPC and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

7.9. Learned counsel further contended that the recoveries of the

blood-stained sword and iron rod, central to the prosecution's

case, lack evidentiary value, as the Forensic Science Laboratory

(F.S.L.) Report dated 28.02.1997 (Article 1) confirms no trace of

human blood on the articles. It was further argued that these

recoveries were made 12-13 days after the incident in question,

from the alleged place of occurrence.

7.10. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has

failed to prove motive of the accused-respondents in the alleged

offence. In absence thereof, they cannot be said to be liable for

the offence in question.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

9. This Court observes that the present appeal arises from an

incident dated 15.05.1996, wherein the deceased, Babura, was

found dead near Suraj Talkies early the next morning. The

deceased's mother lodged a report on 16.05.1996 at around 6:00

AM with the Deputy Inspector General, Bikaner (Ex.P-14),

pursuant to which an FIR was registered at Police Station Kotgate,

Bikaner (Ex.P-15). Charges were framed under Sections 302, 147,

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

148, 149, and 120B IPC, and trial ensued. The learned Trial Court,

however, acquitted all accused-respondents by the impugned

judgment, which is under challenge in the present appeal

preferred by the Appellant-State.

10. This Court further observes that the case of the prosecution

lays emphasis on the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses

(namely, Shankarlal (PW.12) and Madanlal (PW.23)), testimonies

of Kallu (PW. 24) brother of the deceased, Nisha (PW.19) sister of

the deceased, and Gauradevi (PW.18) mother of the deceased and

complainant, and the recoveries made.

11. This Court notes from the deposition of Shankarlal (PW-12)

that, despite allegedly witnessing the commission of the offence

by the accused-respondents, he neither reported the incident to

the police authorities nor informed the family members of the

deceased, Babura. It was only after a lapse of 10-12 days that he

allegedly conveyed the said information to Pukhraj (PW-20), with

whom he shared prior acquaintance, and that too in the course of

consuming alcohol together. It is further pertinent to note that the

testimony of Pukhraj (PW-20) does not support or corroborate the

assertion made by Shankarlal (PW-12) regarding such disclosure

after the aforementioned delay. Additionally, this Court observes

that the statements of Shankarlal (PW-12) have been inconsistent

throughout, and given that his testimony, though rendered in the

capacity of an eye-witness, was delivered under intoxication, it

significantly undermines his credibility as a reliable witness.

11.1. This Court further observes that the testimony of Madanlal

(PW-23) suffers from material inconsistencies. Although he claims

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

to have witnessed the incident and identified the accused-

respondents, he failed to recognize his own brother, the deceased.

Additionally, there were significant contradictions in his statements

regarding his arrival and departure from Bikaner, his occupation,

the alleged recoveries, and other relevant aspects. These

discrepancies render his version of events unreliable. In view of

these inconsistencies, this Court finds it difficult to place reliance

on the testimony of Madanlal (PW-23) as that of a credible eye-

witness.

11.2. This Court is of the considered opinion that in cases of this

nature, judicial determination must prioritize the quality over the

quantity of evidence. Where material contradictions exist in the

testimonies of purported eye-witnesses regarding essential

elements establishing culpability, the benefit of such doubt must

accrue to the accused-respondents.

12. This Court is mindful of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana,

(2023) 10 SCC 134, wherein it was held that the evidentiary

value of an eyewitness account must be of very sterling quality

and reliability--such that it independently inspires the confidence

of the Court and warrants acceptance without hesitation. The

judgment further underscores that the credibility of such

testimony must be assessed in conjunction with corroborative

elements such as the recovery of incriminating objects, the nature

and use of weapons, modus operandi, forensic findings, and

expert analysis. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced

hereunder:

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

"16. As noticed hereinabove, the evidence of the eyewitness should be of very sterling quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value. This Court in Rai Sandeep v.

State (NCT of Delhi) [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 750] has held : (SCC p. 29, para 22)"

13. This Court further observes that the recoveries of the alleged

weapons and other articles from the place of occurrence were

effected in the presence of Pukhraj (PW-20) and Kallu (PW-24).

Notably, despite the location being an open and publicly accessible

area, no independent witness was enlisted, and only relatives of

the deceased were cited as motbirs, thereby casting a shadow of

doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's version. Furthermore,

the recoveries were effected after a delay of 12-13 days, which is

a material lapse that cannot be disregarded in adjudication of the

present matter.

14. This Court also observes that the FSL Report (unexhibited

document) does not show the presence of human blood on the

recovered weapons (namely, the sword and the iron rod).

15. This Court further observes that there has been

contradictions in respect to the statements of Gauradevi (PW.18)

and Smt. Lakshmi (PW.26) with respect to the time of information

received about the death of Babura, which subsequently impacts

the authenticity of the FIR.

16. This Court further notes that the prosecution has failed to

establish any cogent or compelling motive attributable to the

accused-respondents for the commission of the alleged offence.

The testimonies of Pushpadevi (PW-11) and Investigating Officer

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

Sukhdev Singh (PW-25) affirm that the deceased was a history-

sheeter with over 70 criminal cases, indicating the presence of

numerous potential adversaries. In such a scenario, fastening

criminal liability upon the accused-respondents in the absence of

substantial and admissible evidence would constitute a

miscarriage of justice and is legally unsustainable.

17. 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:20355-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

(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:

[2025:RJ-JD:20355-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

(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."

18. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed

the impugned judgment acquitted the accused-respondents, as

above, 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 analysed 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.

19. 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:20355-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-703/1999]

20. 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 so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment

of acquittal.

21. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

21.1. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A

Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., each of the surviving accused-respondents

are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

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 surviving

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.

21.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the

learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)