Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:44585) on 10 October, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:44585]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 431/1996

1. Narayan Ram son of Shri Roopa Ram

2. Chaina Ram son of Shri Narayan Ram Both resident of Sardarpura, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Sanwant Ram son of Shri Kheta Ram

3. Kheta Ram son of Shri Hukma Ram Both resident of Sardarpura, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 62/1997 State

----Appellant Versus Narayan Ram And Anr

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Mehta with Mr. Prasannjeet Gaur for the accused-

persons For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor for the State

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

10/10/2025

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 27.07.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Nagaur, Camp Didwana (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial

court'), whereby the trial court though convicted both the accused

persons namely, Narayan Ram and Chainaram for the offences

(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44585] (2 of 6) [CRLA-431/1996]

punishable under Sections 447, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), but has

given benefit of probation to them.

2. The relevant facts are that the complainant - Sanwant Ram

(PW-4) had lodged a First Information Report on 10.06.1995 at

2:30 pm at Police Station Didwana, inter alia stating that in the

morning at around 8:00 am, the accused person - Narayan Ram

removed the Baad (thatched fence) and when the complainant

challenged him, Narayan Ram hit the complainant with jelly, due

to which, he suffered injury on the head and on right side of

eyebrow while Chainaram hit him on the head with an axe.

Whereafter, the father of the complainant approached the scene

and he was also assaulted by an axe on his hand by the accused -

Chainaram and then, both of them ran away.

3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the

accused - Narayan Ram and Chainaram for the offences under

Sections 447, 324, 325/34, 323 and 307 of the IPC.

4. The trial court after sifting through the evidence on record

and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

complainant and his father, acquitted the accused persons for the

offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC but nevertheless

convicted them for the offence under Sections 447, 325/34,

323/34 and 324/34 of the IPC.

5. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the

acquittal of the accused persons - respondent Nos.1 (Narayan

Ram) and No.2 (Chainaram) for the offence under Sections

307/34 of the IPC.

(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44585] (3 of 6) [CRLA-431/1996]

6. Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor argued the appeal,

took the Court through the oral testimony of the complainant who

was an injured eye witness and argued that having regard to the

nature and place of injury, the trial court was not justified in

acquitting the accused-respondents for the offence under Section

307/34 of the IPC.

7. He argued that the trial court has also erred in giving the

benefit of probation to the accused-persons.

8. Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents - accused persons argued that in the case of

acquittal, the scope for interference of the High Court in its

appellate jurisdiction is very limited. And, if the trial court after

examining the evidence on record has taken a particular view and

acquitted the accused persons (respondent Nos.1 and 2) for the

offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC, the High Court should

not go on to appreciate the evidence threadbare and unsettle the

view that has been taken by the trial court and which is the most

plausible view.

9. He submitted that the trial court has convicted the accused

persons for the offences under Sections 447, 325/34, 323/34 and

324/34 of the IPC on the appreciation of the very same injuries

and given benefit of probation and therefore, no interference is

warranted.

10. He argued that according to the respondent-accused

persons, their conviction even in the above referred offences could

not have been made and the judgment and order dated

27.07.1996 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused

persons are entitled to be acquitted completely.

(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44585] (4 of 6) [CRLA-431/1996]

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

record, including the oral and ocular evidence.

12. On perusal of the record, the fact that the accused persons

came to transgress upon the land of the complainant so also the

fact that they had assaulted the complainant and his father have

been aptly proved.

13. So far as contention of learned Public Prosecutor that they

could not have been acquitted for the offence under Section

307/34 of the IPC is concerned, this Court is of the view that the

nature of injuries and the oral deposition of the complainant are

not sufficient to prove that the accused persons approached the

complainant with a motive to kill him. So far as acquittal under

Section 307 is concerned, it is settled position of law that the High

Court in its appellate jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the

evidence in its entirety, more particularly, in an appeal against the

acquittal.

14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Rai Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal

No. 1508 of 2005, has held that in appeal against acquittal, the

Court should be very slow and loath in interfering and unless there

is a serious misreading of the evidence or procedural lapses in the

trial, no interference should be made.

15. Relevant part of the judgment in the case of Ashok Rai

(supra) reads hereinfra:-

"8. Several Judgments of this court have been cited

on the principles which should guide the court while

dealing with an appeal against order of acquittal. The

law is so well settled that it is not necessary to refer

(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44585] (5 of 6) [CRLA-431/1996]

to those judgments. Suffice it to say that the

appellate court has to be very cautious while

reversing an order of acquittal because order of

acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence of

the accused. If the view taken by the trial court is a

reasonably possible view it should not be disturbed,

because the appellate court feels that some other

view is also possible. A perverse order of acquittal

replete with gross errors of facts and law will have to

be set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice,

because just as the court has to give due weight to

the presumption of innocence and see that innocent

person is not sentenced, it is equally the duty of the

court to see that the guilty do not escape punishment.

Unless the appellate court finds the order of acquittal

to be clearly unreasonable and is convinced that there

are substantial and compelling reasons to interfere

with it, it should not interfere with it."

16. Reference may also be made to a judgment rendered in the

case Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P., reported in 2012 AIR

SCW 2990 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as

under:

"only in exceptional cases where there are

compelling circumstances and the judgment in

appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court

can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The

appellate court should bear in mind the

presumption of innocence of the accused and

(Uploaded on 10/10/2025 at 04:49:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44585] (6 of 6) [CRLA-431/1996]

further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the

presumption of innocence. Interference in a

routine manner where the other view is possible

should be avoided, unless there are good reasons

for interference."