Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2004 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sheo Prasad

2006-06-01

HARBANS LAL

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant State appeal under Section 378(1)(III) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 21.3.1984 of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar Camp Behror acquitting 26 accused persons put on trial for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 325, 325/149, 307/149 and 452 IPC. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal and necessary for its disposal are that one Ramavtar PW-1 made a written report on 26.3.1979 to the S.H.O., Police Station Behror to the effect that on the previous night at about 8.00 p.m. accused-respondents came together duly armed with lathis, pharsis, dantlis, axe, etc. with the common object to kill him. They first went to the house of Netram, pulled him out and belaboured him. On his raising the hue and cry, Makhtu Singh PW-6, Janak Singh PW-2, Ram Kanwar PW-4 and Norang Singh PW-5 came there. The accused struck them as well as their heads etc. Then they went to the houses of Basanta, Bachna Ahir and Nathu Mahajan and after breaking open their doors, they committed house trespass and gave them beating with the weapons they were armed with. They inquired of them complainant Ramavtar was. They asked them to send him out. 3. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 34/79 came to be registered at the Behror. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. As the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar for trial who transferred it to the court below. The charges, as indicated above, were framed against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and got 28 documents exhibited to prove the charges against the accused. The accused were then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the incriminating materials put to them. They examined three witnesses and got exhibited 14 documents in their defence. 4. The trial court after hearing both the sides and on the basis of the evidence on record held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquired all the accused persons of all the charges. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. 4. The trial court after hearing both the sides and on the basis of the evidence on record held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquired all the accused persons of all the charges. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and have perused the record as well as the impugned judgment. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned court below has wrongly disbelieved the witnesses treating them to be interested witnesses and the factum of occurrence having taken place cannot be disputed in view of the simple and grievous injuries sustained by the inured persons. The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses which have been given undue weight and importance are minor contractions which are natural to all the truthful witnesses. 7. Learned counsel representing the accused has supported the judgment of the trial court and has submitted that there is no legal or factual error or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. He has also submitted that the general presumption of innocence of the accused is not weekend by the order of acquittal passed in their favour, but is rather strengthened. He has also submitted that where two views are possible on the evidence, one taken by the trial court cannot be substituted by the appellate court simply because another view on the same evidence is also possible. According to him, the approach of the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. There is also not justifying interference in the judgment of acquittal of the trial court. He has, therefore, prayed that no interference may be made in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court after a lapse of about 26 years. 8. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of accused persons cannot be and ought not to be reversed simply because two views on the same evidence are possible unless the approach of the trial court is palpably erroneous and perverse resulting into miscarriage of justice. It may be stated at the out set that there is political rivalry between the parties. It may be stated at the out set that there is political rivalry between the parties. There are two parties in the village headed by Sheo Prasad and Ram Avtar. Several cases have been got registered by accused Sheo Prasad against Ram Avtar and others. Accused Sheo Prasad belongs to Congress-1 party while Ram Avtar PW-1 belongs to other party. So, as per the settled law, the evidence of the witnesses is required to be scrutinised and examined minutely and with utmost care and caution in the light of the checks and balances available on record, for, the possibility of false implication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out. 9. The prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses in support of its case as indicated above. Ramavatar PW-1 is admittedly not an eye witness of the occurrence. Whatever has been mentioned in the FIR by him is based on hear-say. He has not stated that the accused persons gave beating to Teedaram in his presence and view. 10. Teedaram PW-3 no doubt states that the occurrence took place at about 7.30 p.m. on that day in the mill of Ramavtar PW-1 and Basanta and Bachna were also there. But, Basanta and Bachna Ram have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Bachna Ram has been examined as DW-1 in their defence. He has not supported the prosecution story at all. He has rather stated that the occurrence had taken place in the Nohra of accused Sheo Prasad. 11. Teedaram PW-3 has admitted that he used to cultivate the fields of Ramavtar PW-1 on sjara during that period. He has not stated that the accused had assaulted him with the intention to kill him. He has stated that the accused had broken open the door of the room in which he alongwith Bachna Ram and Basanta were sitting and asked them as to where Ramavtar was. On their telling them that Ramavtar was not there, accused Sheo Prasad pulled out him out of the room and started belabouring him. The fact that the accused were after Ramavtar. PW-1 further renders it reasonably doubtful that the accused had an intention to kill Teedaram PW-3. 12. On their telling them that Ramavtar was not there, accused Sheo Prasad pulled out him out of the room and started belabouring him. The fact that the accused were after Ramavtar. PW-1 further renders it reasonably doubtful that the accused had an intention to kill Teedaram PW-3. 12. Admittedly, there were large number of people there at the time of the alleged occurrence, but none of these independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution and no explanation what-so-ever has been given for not examining any of these eye witnesses. No other eye witness examined in this case has supported the testimony of Teedaram PW-3. The learned trial court has held on a minute, careful and detailed discussion, analysis and appreciation of the evidence on record that it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder of Teedaram PW-5 and assaulted him and others in furtherance of the said common object. The trial court has given cogent and valid reasons for coming to such a conclusion and its approach cannot be said to be palpably wrong or perverse resulting in gross miscarriage of justice so as to call for, justify and warrant interference of this court in the order of acquittal recorded quo the accused-petitioners. 13. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal cannot be and ought not to be reversed simply because two views on the evidence are possible. The instant case at best can be said to be a case where other view on the evidence of witnesses may be possible, but that by itself cannot be a valid ground to up-set the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused particularly keeping in view the long standing enmity and political rivalry between the parties and litigation going on between them in various courts. 14. Thus, having considered the entire evidence on record in the light of the checks and balances and keeping in view the settled legal position with regard to the powers of this Court against an order of acquittal, I do not find any cogent and valid ground to interfere in the judgment of the learned court below after a lapse of about 26 years.Consequently, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******