State vs Mohanlal And Ors ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 13397 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mohanlal And Ors ... on 18 September, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
             D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 498/2002

State of Rajasthan
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1. Mohanlal S/o Mahaveer Prasad,
2. Suresh Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad,
3. Jayveer S/o Radha Kishan,
4. Leeladhar S/o Radha Kishan,
5. Mahaveer S/o Likhmaram,
6. Rajendra S/o Radha Kishan,
7. Mahendra Singh S/o Radha Kishan,
8. Sant Lal S/o Radha Kishan,
   All By caste Kalal Hindu, R/o Banya, Tehsil Taranagar, District
   Churu.
                                                                    ----Respondent



For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP
                                   Mr. R.S. Rawal, for complainant
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
                         Judgment
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

18/09/2025

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against

the judgment dated 24.11.2001, passed by learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District- Churu, in Sessions

Case No.47/1999, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the

accused-respondents from the offence punishable under Sections

148, 302 read with 149 IPC.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy

are that on 26.07.1999 complainant- Prabhu Ram @ Prabhu Dayal

gave a written report at concerned Police Station to the effect that

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

due to longstanding enmity between his family and the accused

party, a violent incident occurred. Approximately 10 to 12 years

prior to the present incident, one Radha Kishan was murdered,

and a criminal case had been registered against the complainant,

Prabhu Ram, and other persons in connection with that offence.

They were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Churu, and their appeal against the conviction was decided by this

court and they were released on undergone. On the date of the

incident, i.e., 26.07.1999, at around 6:30 PM, the complainant's

father- Ram Kumar, was on his way to the bus stand from his

residence. When he reached near the house of Mangilal, all the

accused persons arrived at the spot. At that point, accused

respondent No. 2- Suresh allegedly struck Ram Kumar on the

head with a lathi, and accused respondent No. 1- Mohan Lal

inflicted a head injury using an iron rod. As a result, Ram Kumar

collapsed. Thereafter, the remaining accused collectively assaulted

him. Upon witnessing the attack, the complainant- Prabhu Ram

and one Sanjay Kumar raised an alarm, prompting the accused

persons to flee the scene. Subsequently, Ram Kumar was taken to

the hospital for medical assistance; however, he succumbed to the

injuries sustained during the assault.

On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the case

against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 302,

341, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. On completion of investigation, Police

filed challan against all the accused respondents for aforesaid

offences.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and

explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302/149

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

and 148 IPC to the accused respondents. He denied the charges

and sought trial. Subsequently, after the examination of

prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3, the prosecution moved an

application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to summon

accused Sant Lal and to take cognizance against him for the

aforementioned offences. The learned Trial Court, upon

consideration, allowed the said application and took cognizance

against Sant Lal under the same provisions.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in

support of its case.

The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. and certain documents were exhibited in support of its

case.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both

the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the

documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide

judgment dated 24.11.2001 acquitted the accused-respondents

from offence under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC. Hence this appeal

preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-

respondents.

Learned Public Prosecutor- Mr. Pawan Kumar submitted a

report that accused respondent No.1- Mohan Lal has died on

15.05.2018 and the death certificate has also been submitted,

which is taken on record. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State

of Rajasthan against the acquittal of Mohan Lal is hereby

dismissed as abated.

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant submitted

that a specific allegation has been levelled against accused

respondent No. 1- Mohan Lal and accused respondent No. 2-

Suresh that they both inflicted injuries on the head of the

deceased and thereafter in furtherance of common intention, other

co-accused started beating to the deceased and according to the

Post Mortem Report, total eight injuries were found on the body of

the deceased and the cause of death is shown as head injury,

which were specifically assigned to accused respondent No. 1-

Mohan Lal and accused respondent No. 2- Suresh. He further

submits that blood stain weapon and clothes were also recovered

from the possession of accused respondent No. 1- Mohan Lal,

however, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused

respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per

se illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, counsel for the accused- respondents submits

that the learned trial Court while considering each and every

aspect of the matter, rightly acquitted the accused respondents.

He further submits that the main accused- Mohan Lal, from which

the blood stained weapon and clothes were recovered, has expired

and now the compromise has also arrived at between the parties

and both the parties resided peacefully. The learned trial court has

passed a detailed and reasoned judgment of acquittal after proper

appreciation of evidence available before it, which requires no

interfere from this Court.

We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the

parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well

as record of the case.

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

On perusal of the statements of these witnesses, clearly

shows that the independent witness has turned hostile and did not

support he prosecution case. Only related witnesses i.e.

complainant- Prabhu Ram (PW/2) and Sanjay (PW/3), family

member of the deceased, who claimed to be eye witness to the

incident, mentioned in their statements that they saw the incident,

however major contradiction, omission and improvement in their

statement. So the true genesis of the occurrence has been

suppressed by the prosecution and other material witnesses. The

recovery of blood stained weapon and clothes were recovered

from the accused respondent No. 1- Mohan Lal, has passed away.

The learned Trial Court after considering each and every aspect of

the matter and rightly acquitted the accused respondents.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724,

while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere

with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is

warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based

on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and

involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such

circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and

substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the

acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this

principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing

the exceptional nature of such interference to r ectify substantial

errors in the acquittal order. these are:-

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169, reiterating the same view it was observed:

"8. ... This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court."

22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174, it was observed:

"190. ... Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be "not guilty". ..."

Similarly in the case of State of State of Uttrakhand Vs. Sanjay

Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 159,' the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:--

"6. Trite is the principle that the appellate courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; appellate courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal.

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41778-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-498/2002]

7.Recently, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24:

24 It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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."

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the

opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against

the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 148, 302/149

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant/State has failed to

show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which

interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under

challenge. The judgment passed by the learned trial court is

detailed, reasoned and perfectly justified and the same does not

suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference

from this Court.

With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no

substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

                                   (RAVI CHIRANIA),J                                   (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
                                    74-Ishan/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:41:33 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)