[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Mahaveer Singh on 1 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:14338]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 683/1998

State Of Rajasthan
                                                                           ----Appellant
                                          Versus
1. Mahaveer Singh S/o Ramchandra
2.    Surendra       Kr.    S/o     Ram       Chandra        R/o       Rodawali   District
Hanumangarh
                                                                         ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)                :     Mr.N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s)               :     None present



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                       Judgment

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                           05/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED                                        05/03/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART                                             Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                                      01/04/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred assailing the

judgment of acquittal dated 25.06.1998 rendered by the learned

ACJM, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 588/1996 (16/1994),

whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the

charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 326/34 IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State;

none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-

accused. The impugned judgment, as well as the entire record

of the case, has been meticulously perused.

3. The prosecution case, in succinct terms, emanates from an

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (2 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

incident alleged to have occurred on 27.05.1994 at about 8:25

PM concerning a dispute over irrigation water. The complainant-

injured Rampratap reported that he, along with his brothers,

had separate shares of agricultural land, and that irrigation

water was being supplied to his field as per a scheduled turn.

3.1. It was alleged that during his turn of irrigation, the

respondents-accused Surendra Kumar and Mahavir, acting in

concert, unlawfully diverted and interrupted the flow of water

towards their own field. When the complainant attempted to

restore the water flow, both accused persons allegedly assaulted

him with sharp-edged agricultural implements (kassi), inflicting

injuries on his hands and body. Upon raising alarm, the accused

fled the scene. The injured was thereafter transported by his

son and relatives to the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh,

where he was medically examined.

3.2. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR

came to be registered for offences under Sections 323, 324, 341

and 430 IPC, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was submitted. The case was committed and subsequently

tried by the competent Court.

3.3. During trial, charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and

326/34 IPC were framed against the accused, to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined

several witnesses, including the injured complainant, his son,

the medical officer, and other witnesses. The accused were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (3 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

allegations. No defence evidence was adduced. Vide the

judgment impugned, the respondents have been acquitted,

hence the instant appeal.

4. Upon a comprehensive and analytical appreciation of the

evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded findings

which are both cogent and compelling, warranting no

interference.

4.1 At the outset, it is a well-settled principle that in an appeal

assailing a judgment of acquittal, the superior court must

exercise circumspection, restraint, and judicial sobriety, and

ought to remain slow and reluctant in interfering with the

findings recorded by the court below. Interference is not to be

undertaken in a routine or casual manner, but only in those

exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrably evident that

the impugned judgment suffers from patent illegality, is in

derogation of settled statutory provisions, or has been rendered

in complete disregard or non-consideration of the material

evidence available on record.

4.2. It is equally trite that where the court of first instance has

exercised its discretion upon a proper and judicious appreciation

of evidence, the superior court ought not to supplant its own

view merely because an alternative interpretation is conceivable.

The discretionary jurisdiction, when exercised in accordance

with law and upon sound evaluation of facts, commands

deference and ought not to be disturbed unless the conclusions

drawn are manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or unsustainable in the

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (4 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

eyes of law. Thus, the appellate forum is not envisaged as a

platform for re-appreciation of evidence in substitution of

findings already arrived at, but rather as a supervisory

mechanism to ensure that justice has not been vitiated by

illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

4.3. The trial Court noted that the independent witnesses,

namely PW-4 Ramchandra, PW-5 Surjaram, and PW-6

Banwarilal, resiled from their earlier statements and were

declared hostile. Their testimonies failed to lend any

corroborative support to the prosecution narrative, thereby

eroding the substratum of the case.

4.4. The prosecution case thus rested predominantly upon the

testimony of the injured witness PW-1 Rampratap and his son

PW-2 Balram. The trial Court, while not discarding their

evidence outright, subjected it to careful scrutiny owing to their

interested and related status. It was observed that PW-2

Balram, being the son of the complainant, was a partisan

witness, and his testimony required independent corroboration,

which was conspicuously absent. Furthermore, the statements

of these witnesses were found to be marred by material

inconsistencies and contradictions, rendering their version

unreliable and unworthy of implicit acceptance.

4.5. The medical evidence, as deposed by PW-3 Dr. Rajendra

Kumar Gupta, also did not conclusively fortify the prosecution

case. The doctor admitted that one of the injuries could be

caused either by a sharp-edged weapon or by a fall, and he was

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (5 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

unable to definitively opine regarding the specific weapon used.

Such equivocation in medical testimony diluted the evidentiary

value of the prosecution case.

4.6. A significant infirmity noted by the trial Court was the

unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR. No plausible

or satisfactory explanation was furnished by the prosecution for

this delay. Moreover, the failure to produce the FIR before the

Court further cast a serious shadow of doubt over the

authenticity and genesis of the prosecution story.

4.7. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the

presumption of innocence stands reinforced once an order of

acquittal is recorded. An appellate court, while dealing with an

appeal against acquittal, is required to exercise restraint and

may interfere only when the findings of the Trial Court are

perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on misreading of

evidence.

4.8. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonably possible

and legally sustainable view, the same ought not to be disturbed

merely because another view is also possible. The Trial Court,

having had the advantage of observing the demeanor of

witnesses, is entitled to due deference.

4.9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka has reiterated that interference with an order of

acquittal is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality or

perversity. The principles enunciated therein emphasize that

where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (6 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

must prevail, and a plausible view taken by the Trial Court ought

not to be supplanted. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment

encapsulates the doctrine in the following terms:

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty...

(i) Appreciation of evidence must be holistic and comprehensive;

(ii) Selective or truncated evaluation may itself occasion miscarriage of justice;

(iii) If two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must ordinarily prevail;

(iv) A legally plausible view of the Trial Court cannot be supplanted merely because another view is possible;

(v) In reversing an acquittal, the appellate Court must deal with all reasons assigned by the Trial Court;

(vi) Conversion of acquittal into conviction requires demonstration of manifest illegality, perversity, or patent error in the Trial Court's approach."

Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled principles and

upon a thorough scrutiny of the record, this Court finds no

compelling reason to take a view different from that taken by

the learned Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence appears to

be judicious, comprehensive, and in accordance with law.

4.9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the learned trial Court has undertaken a

judicious and well-reasoned evaluation of the evidence, and its

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (7 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]

findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The view

taken by the trial Court is a plausible and legally sustainable