Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baluram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 115/1993
1. Baluram s/o Shri Laduram, by Caste Meghwal
2. Motiram s/o Shri Laduram, by Caste Janglia
3. Durgasingh s/o Shri Sugansingh, by Caste Rajput
4. Mahendrasingh s/o Shri Govind Singh, by caste Rajput
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakrawati Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, P.P. assisted by
Ms. Shivangi Pathak for Mr. Deepak
Menaria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reserved on: 06/08/2025
Pronounced on: 06/11/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., against the
judgment dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated
20.03.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 5/92, whereby
the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
below:
Accused-appellant Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
3(2)(iv) of Life Imprisonment Rs 500/- each, in
SC/ST(prevention of default of payment of
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
Atrocities) Act fine to further undergo
1 month Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC 6 months Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Balaram, and Motiram:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
Section 436 IPC 5 years Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
1 month Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC 6 months Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Durgasingh, Mahendrasingh, Balaram, and
Motiram:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
Section 323 IPC 3 months Rigorous Rs 200/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
1.1. At the outset, it is noted that accused-appellants No. 1 and
2, namely Balaram and Motiram, have expired during pendency of
the appeal. Hence, the adjudication survives only in respect of
appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh.
2. The present case arises out of a written report dated
11.02.1990 lodged by the complainant Shankarlal at about 9:15
AM at police station Piparcity, alleging therein that on 10.02.1990
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
at about 8 AM, the accused-appellants entered into his shack
(kachhi dhani) and started beating him, as a result whereof the
complainant Shankarram received multiple injuries, including one
on head.
2.1. It is also alleged in the report that the accused Durgasingh
with an intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to the shack
belonging to the complainant Shankarram, lit fire as a result
whereof, all articles lying in the aforesaid dhani were burnt. Smt.
Kamla, Smt. Situri, Durgara, and Laluram are named in the FIR,
who are said to have witnessed this incident. On receiving the
information, the S.H.O. Police Station, Piparcity registered a
regular criminal case being FIR Case No. 183/90 and the
investigation ensued.
2.2. After the investigation, a chargesheet pertaining to the
offences punishable under Section 447, 452, 323, and 436 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section
3(2)(iv) and (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1989') was presented in the
court of Judicial Magistrate, Piparcity, who in turn committed the
case for trial under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2.3. The charges under Section 323, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)
(iii), (iv), and (v)of the Act of 1989 were read over to the
accused-appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh; and to
accused-appellants Balaram and Motiram under Section 452, 323,
and 436 IPC were read over and explained to them, to which they
denied and pleaded false implication in the present case.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
2.4. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 20
witnesses and 21 documents were exhibited; in defence, 5
witnesses were produced on behalf of the accused-appellants
whereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication
in the criminal case in question. Accused-appellant Durgasingh
and Mahendrasingh pleaded that at the time of the incident they
were Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively. The rest of the accused
persons said that the father of the plaintiff wanted to plough the
field of Pukhram Lohar and hence this false case was filed, but no
evidence of any kind was presented in their defence.
2.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties
as well as considering the material evidence placed on record, the
learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence
dated 20.03.1993, against which the present appeal has been
preferred by the accused-appellants, claiming the afore-quoted
reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that
the learned Trial Court has committed a material irregularity in
appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has
thereby erred both in law and on facts in convicting the accused-
appellants. It was contended that the entire prosecution story is
false, concocted, and based on the testimony of highly interested
witnesses belonging to the same family as the complainant. The
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
finding of guilt recorded against the accused-appellants, therefore,
is wholly unsustainable.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-
appellants have been falsely implicated due to local enmity arising
from agricultural land disputes between the complainant's father
and one Pukhraj Lohar, who was unrelated to the appellants. It
was argued that there existed no prior animosity or motive on the
part of the appellants to commit the offences alleged. The absence
of motive assumes greater significance when the prosecution
evidence suffers from material contradictions.
3.1.1 . It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court has
not recorded any finding as to motive, though the same forms an
important link in cases resting on circumstantial and testimonial
evidence. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt ought to
have been extended to the appellants.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged incident took
place on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., whereas the FIR was
lodged on 11.02.1990 at 9:15 a.m., i.e., after a delay of nearly 25
hours, despite the police station being situated close to the
village. It was contended that no satisfactory explanation has
been provided for such delay, which gives rise to the possibility of
afterthought and deliberation. The delay in registration of FIR,
coupled with lack of prompt medical corroboration, seriously
undermines the spontaneity and authenticity of the prosecution
version.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case
is founded exclusively on the depositions of PW-7 Shankarlal
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
(complainant), PW-8 Smt. Kamla (wife), and PW-9 Smt. Situri
(sister-in-law), all being closely related to each other. No
independent witness has supported the prosecution case in
material particulars.
3.3.1. It was urged that the independent witnesses PW-1
Bhuraram and PW-2 Bhikhara categorically deposed that they did
not witness the accused committing any such act. Their
statements demolish the prosecution's claim that the incident
occurred in broad daylight in presence of villagers.
3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that there are glaring
contradictions between the statements of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9
with regard to the time of occurrence, the role of individual
accused, and the exact place of fire. PW-7 stated that the incident
occurred at 8:00 a.m., PW-8 at 7:30 a.m., and PW-9 admitted
that she reached the place only after seeing smoke. The
inconsistency in their testimonies is material and cannot be
attributed to mere lapse of memory.
3.4.1. It was contended that in absence of corroboration from
neutral witnesses, the conviction based solely on related witnesses
is legally unsound.
3.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the investigation
conducted in the present case was perfunctory and in complete
disregard to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
3.5.1. It was pointed out that no lathi, kerosene container, or
matchstick was recovered from any of the accused-appellants.
Further, no FSL report or scientific evidence was produced to
establish that the alleged burning was caused by human agency.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
The investigating officer did not seize any burnt articles from the
site or produce them before the court.
3.5.2. It was further argued that the site plan (Ex. P- ) does not
clearly depict the exact location of the alleged "dhani" in relation
to the complainant's house. The prosecution failed to establish
whether the place was indeed a dwelling house or merely a
temporary shed used for storing agricultural implements.
3.5.3. Learned counsel emphasized that the medical evidence
shows only simple injuries on the complainant, which is
inconsistent with the allegation of an assault by four persons
armed with lathis. The non-recovery of any weapon or burnt
material completely demolishes the prosecution case and entitles
the appellants to benefit of doubt.
3.6. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has utterly
failed to prove that the structure allegedly burnt was a dwelling
house. The complainant himself described it as a "kachhi jhopdi"
or "dhani" used for storage. It was argued that in absence of
evidence to show residential use, the charge under Section 436
IPC cannot stand, as that provision applies only to destruction of
dwelling houses or places of worship. Consequently, it was
submitted that the conviction under Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is dependent upon proof of
burning of a dwelling, is equally untenable in law.
3.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the essential
ingredient of offences under Section 3(2)(iii-v) of the SC/ST Act,
namely, that the act was committed on the ground that the victim
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, has not been
established by the prosecution.
3.7.1. It was argued that mere reference to the caste of the
complainant in the FIR does not fulfill the requirement of intent.
There is no evidence that the alleged offence was committed with
an intention to humiliate or harm the complainant on account of
his caste status.
3.8. Learned counsel further submitted that accused-appellants
Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh specifically pleaded the defence of
alibi, asserting that they were at Jalore and Jaisalmer,
respectively, on the date of incident. It was pointed out that this
plea was supported by defence witnesses DW-2 to DW-4, who
were not discredited in cross-examination. However, the learned
Trial Court summarily rejected the plea of alibi without giving
cogent reasons.
3.9. Learned counsel also submitted that all the accused-
appellants remained on bail during trial as well as during
pendency of appeal and never misused the liberty granted to
them. This conduct reflects their cooperation with the judicial
process and supports the bona fides of their defence.
3.10. Learned counsel submitted that the cumulative effect of
the contradictions in prosecution evidence, the absence of motive,
the failure to prove caste-based intent, and the non-corroboration
by forensic evidence creates a serious doubt about the prosecution
case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appellants are entitled to
acquittal of major offences under Sections 436, 452 IPC and
Sections 3(2)(iii-v) of the Act of 1989, and in the alternative, their
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
conviction may be altered to the minor offences punishable under
the Indian Penal Code with the sentence already undergone.
3.11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that
during pendency of the appeal, both parties have amicably settled
their dispute and executed a compromise deed, expressing their
desire to maintain peace; offences under Sections 323 and 452
IPC being compoundable, the compromise deserves acceptance to
that extent, while in respect of Section 436 IPC and the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though non-compoundable, the
settlement and lapse of over three decades may be considered as
a mitigating circumstance for leniency in sentence.
3.12. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment of
(i) Dashrath Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023, decided on 29.01.2024);
(ii) Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal
No. 660 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025);
(iii) Ramgopal & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal
Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, decided on 11.02.2025);
(iv) Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.
1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021);
4. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the
respondent-State and Ms. Shivani Pathak for Mr. Deepak Menaria
appearing on behalf of the complainant, submitted that the
impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on proper
appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has proved the charges
beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and
documentary evidence.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimonies of
PW-7 Shankarlal, PW-8 Smt. Kamla, and PW-9 Smt. Situri are
natural, cogent, and consistent on material particulars. Their
relationship with the victim does not make them unreliable when
their presence at the scene is natural.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the spot
inspection, site plan, and seizure memos corroborate the
eyewitness account. The dhani and household articles were found
burnt soon after the incident, confirming the occurrence.
4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the incident
was a result of long-standing hostility between the complainant
and the accused side. The motive, therefore, is sufficiently
established and supports the prosecution case.
4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the delay in
lodging FIR was due to the complainant tending to the injured and
arranging for safety of his family. Such minor delay does not
prejudice the prosecution.
4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
investigating officer conducted fair investigation, prepared site
plan, collected samples, and examined all relevant witnesses.
Absence of FSL report or weapon recovery does not nullify
otherwise consistent oral evidence.
4.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
complainant and witnesses have categorically stated the caste
status of the victim and the accused's awareness thereof. The acts
of trespass, assault, and arson were directed against a Scheduled
Caste family, attracting Sections 3(2)(iii-v) of the SC/ST Act.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
4.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the plea of
alibi was rightly rejected as the defence failed to produce
convincing evidence of the accused's presence elsewhere. The trial
court's finding on this issue is based on sound reasoning.
4.8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that non-
examination of independent witnesses is not fatal when the
testimony of injured and natural witnesses is trustworthy. The
courts have consistently upheld convictions on such evidence.
4.9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compromise,
though genuine, cannot override the statutory bar against
compounding of serious offences under the SC/ST Act and Section
436 IPC.
4.10. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence
awarded is proportionate to the gravity of offences and calls for no
interference. Learned Public Prosecutor finally submitted that the
appeal deserves dismissal, and the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 16.03.1993/20.03.1993 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur, be
affirmed in toto.
4.11. Learned Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of:
(i) Gian Singh vs State of Punjab,((2012) 10 SCC 303, decided
on 24.09.2012);
(ii) Narinder Sinder & Ors. Vs State of Punjab, ((2014) 6 SCC
466, decided on 27.03.1970);
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors., ((2019) 5
SCC 688, decided on 01.01.1970);
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the
record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the present appeal under Section
374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated
16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 5/92, whereby the accused-
appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 323,
436, 452 IPC and Sections 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is noted that accused-appellants Balaram
and Motiram have since expired; hence, the adjudication is
confined to the surviving appellants Durgasingh and
Mahendrasingh.
7. This Court observes that the prosecution case originates
from a written report dated 11.02.1990 lodged by complainant
Shankarlal at Police Station, Piparcity, at about 9:15 a.m., alleging
that on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., the accused-appellants
forcibly entered his "kachhi dhani" (shack) and assaulted him,
causing injuries, including one on his head. It was further alleged
that accused Durgasingh, with intent to cause wrongful loss, set
fire to the said structure, resulting in destruction of articles stored
therein. The report named Smt. Kamla, Smt. Situri, Durgara, and
Laluram as witnesses to the occurrence. This Court observes that
the FIR was registered as Case No. 183/90 and investigation
ensued, culminating in filing of a chargesheet under Sections 447,
452, 323, and 436 IPC and Sections 3(2)(iv) & (v) of the SC/ST
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Piparcity, who committed the
case to the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jodhpur.
8. This Court observes that although the incident is alleged to
have occurred on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., the FIR was
lodged only on 11.02.1990 at 9:15 a.m., reflecting a delay of
nearly twenty-five hours despite the Police Station, Piparcity,
being situated in close proximity to the place of occurrence.
Several persons--namely Bhuraram, Bhikharam, Kamla, Situri,
Durgara, and Laluram--were admittedly present or reached the
scene soon after the occurrence, yet none of them went to the
nearby police station to report the matter. The prosecution's
further claim that Bhuraram and Bhikharam instead went to the
Bhilada Police Station, which is farther away, appears wholly
unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human conduct. In the
absence of a plausible explanation for not approaching the nearest
police station, the delay in lodging the FIR assumes material
significance and gives rise to a legitimate inference of deliberation
and embellishment, thereby affecting the spontaneity and
reliability of the prosecution version.
9. This Court also observes that there exists a significant doubt
regarding the identity of accused Mahendrasingh. The
complainant, PW-7 Shankarlal, in his testimony, categorically
stated that he did not know the father of Mahendrasingh and could
only say that he was a person residing "towards Jalore." Such
vague and uncertain identification falls far short of the standard
required to fix the presence and participation of an accused in the
commission of an offence. The absence of clear and consistent
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
evidence establishing who Mahendrasingh actually was, or his
precise connection to the incident, renders his identification highly
doubtful.
10. This Court observes that the statement of PW-6 Dhangaram
was recorded nearly six months after the alleged incident, and
notably, his name does not find mention in the FIR or in the list of
initial eyewitnesses. The unexplained delay in recording his
statement, coupled with his absence from the contemporaneous
account of the occurrence, seriously undermines the credibility of
his testimony.
10.1. This Court observes that the prosecution examined 20
witnesses, of whom PW-7 (Shankarlal), PW-8 (Smt. Kamla), and
PW-9 (Smt. Situri) are the principal witnesses. Their testimonies
reveal material contradictions on vital particulars.
10.2. This Court further observes that there exists a material
contradiction between the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses
regarding the actual act of setting fire to the structure. The
complainant, PW-7 Shankarlal, deposed that accused Durgaram lit
the matchstick while accused Mahendrasingh spread the fire,
whereas PW-8 Smt. Kamla, wife of the complainant, stated that it
was Mahendrasingh who lit the match and Durgaram who lit a
piece of paper, and that subsequently Motiram and Balaram
spread the fire. These inconsistencies strike at the root of the
prosecution case, as they directly concern the identification of the
assailants and the manner of commission of the alleged offence.
When the prosecution witnesses materially differ on such a
fundamental aspect of the incident, it creates a serious doubt as
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
to the accuracy of their observation and the truthfulness of their
version, thereby rendering the prosecution story unreliable.
10.3. PW-9 (Smt. Situri, sister-in-law) admitted that she reached
the scene after seeing smoke, thereby not being an eyewitness to
the assault itself.
10.4. These inconsistencies regarding time, sequence, and
participation of individual accused are material and not explainable
as mere lapses of memory. When the entire case rests on oral
testimony of related witnesses, such contradictions seriously
weaken the prosecution's case.
10.5. This Court further observes that all the material prosecution
witnesses examined in the present case are closely related to the
complainant and thus fall within the category of interested
witnesses. PW-7 Shankarlal is the complainant himself, PW-8 Smt.
Kamla is his wife, and PW-9 Smt. Situri is his sister-in-law. No
independent or neutral witness from the village has supported the
prosecution version in any material particular. While the mere
relationship of witnesses with the victim is not, by itself, a ground
to discard their testimony, their evidence must be subjected to
strict scrutiny and accepted only when it inspires confidence and is
found to be wholly trustworthy. In the present case, the
testimonies of these related witnesses suffer from material
contradictions, exaggerations, and inconsistencies, and in the
absence of corroboration from any independent source, reliance
upon such evidence would be unsafe.
11. This Court observes that PW-1 (Bhuraram) and PW-2
(Bhikhara), both independent villagers, categorically deposed that
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
they did not see the accused committing the alleged acts of
assault or arson. These statements directly contradict the
prosecution's claim that the incident occurred in broad daylight in
presence of several villagers. No other independent witness has
supported the prosecution in material particulars. The absence of
independent corroboration renders reliance on closely-related
witnesses unsafe, particularly when their statements are mutually
inconsistent.
12. This Court observes that the investigation suffers from
substantial procedural and evidentiary lapses:
(i) No lathi, kerosene container, or matchbox was recovered
from any accused;
(ii) No FSL report or chemical analysis of samples has been
placed on record to establish that the burning was caused by
human agency;
These omissions collectively indicate a perfunctory investigation.
In cases of arson, where ocular evidence is uncertain, forensic
corroboration becomes vital. Its absence here substantially
undermines the prosecution's version.
13. This Court observes that the medical report shows the
complainant sustained only simple injuries. The injuries described
are inconsistent with the allegation of an assault by four persons
armed with lathis. Absence of grievous injury, coupled with non-
recovery of weapons, weakens the prosecution narrative of a
coordinated attack.
14. This Court observes that accused-appellants Durgasingh and
Mahendrasingh specifically pleaded alibi, asserting that they were
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
at Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively, at the time of the alleged
occurrence. This plea was supported by DW-2 to DW-4, who were
not discredited in cross-examination. The learned Trial Court
rejected this plea summarily, without cogent reasoning or
analysis. The prosecution failed to bring convincing evidence to
rebut the alibi. In criminal jurisprudence, where an alibi raises a
reasonable doubt regarding presence of the accused, the benefit
of that doubt must be given to the accused. The failure to consider
the alibi properly constitutes a significant infirmity in the trial
court's judgment.
15. This Court observes that the prosecution has not established
any specific motive or animus against the complainant. The record
suggests a land dispute between the complainant's father and one
Pukhraj Lohar, unconnected with the accused. The absence of
established motive gains importance where evidence is
circumstantial and rests on testimony of interested witnesses.
16. It is further to be noted that the prosecution witnesses were
examined over an extended span of nearly two years, creating
ample scope for deliberation and improvement upon their earlier
versions. Such prolonged gaps between the recording of
statements not only dilute the spontaneity and reliability of the
witnesses' recollection but also raise a legitimate apprehension of
embellishment and afterthought. When the core prosecution
witnesses depose at widely separated intervals, particularly in a
case resting primarily on oral testimony, the consistency and
credibility of their statements become doubtful, thereby
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
weakening the overall evidentiary foundation of the prosecution
case.
17. This Court observes that during pendency of this appeal, a
compromise deed dated 18.03.2013, was executed between the
parties expressing mutual desire to maintain peace. This Court
observes that in the present case, the compromise deed does not
affect the outcome, as the prosecution itself has failed to establish
guilt under the major charges beyond reasonable doubt.
18. This Court further observes that when the judgment of
conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper
appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court
has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided
under Section 386(b) of Cr.PC, which reads as under:-
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.--
(b) in an appeal from a conviction--
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge
the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of
competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court
or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature
or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the
sentence, but not so as to enhance the same."
18.1.This Court also observes that as provided under Section
386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the
findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused.
19. This Court observes that, upon cumulative evaluation of the
entire record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The unexplained 25-hour delay in lodging the
FIR, despite proximity of the police station, erodes the spontaneity
of the complaint. The ocular evidence of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
suffers from material inconsistencies regarding time, sequence,
and participation, while independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2
have not supported the prosecution. The investigation is marred
by non-recovery of weapons or kerosene container, absence of FSL
report, and a vague site plan failing to show the structure as a
dwelling-house. Medical evidence discloses only simple injuries,
inconsistent with an assault by four persons. The alibi set up by
the appellants remains unrebutted, and no motive or caste-based
intent, an essential element under the SC/ST Act, has been
established. Taken together, these infirmities create a serious
cumulative doubt as to the prosecution version.
19.1. Therefore, in the presence of the such lacunae, the
prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants
beyond all reasonable doubts, which in the present case, are
insufficient in themselves to complete the chain of circumstantial
evidence and thus, it would be appropriate to reverse the findings
of conviction against the accused- appellants, as recorded by the
learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment.
19.2. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual
matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence
and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to
exercise the power conferred under Section 386(2), which pertains
to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.03.1993 and the order
of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed by learned Special Judge,
SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jodhpur in Sessions
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (20 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
Case No. 5/92 is quashed and set aside. The charges against the
surviving accused-appellants Durgasingh s/o Sugansingh and
Mahendrasingh s/o Govind Singh recorded under Section 3(2)(iv)
of the Act of 1989, Sections 436, 452 and 323 IPC; are hereby set
aside. The accused- appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh are
acquitted of all the aforesaid offences. The convictions recorded
against Balaram and Motiram having already abated owing to their
demise, no further order is required in respect of them. The
sentence of the accused-appellants have been suspended vide
order dated 06.05.1993 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
113/1993; they need not surrender in connection with the present
case; their bail bonds stand discharged.
19.1. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A
Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., the surviving accused-appellants are hereby
directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and
a surety bond each in the like amount before the learned Trial
court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the
effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against
the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the accused-
appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and
when called upon to do so.
19.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the
learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
77-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
