Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1695 (RAJ)

State v. Kirpa Ram

2022-05-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 25.05.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur ('trial court') in Case No. 154/94, whereby the present accused-respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 447, 427, 323, 325, 323/34 & 325/34 IPC. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that an FIR bearing No. 134/93 was lodged by one Devi Singh (complainant), alleging therein that on 12.10.1993, at about 09:00 p.m., while the complainant and his family were sleeping after having dinner, on that day, at about 12:00-01:00 in the night, 10-12 persons came on two tractors and started throwing stones and shouted, while using abusive language and telling the complainant and his family to leave the place (house), otherwise, they would be killed; those persons included the present accused-respondents also. 2.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that following the aforementioned assault, the complainant and his family entered the 'Padawa' (Kachcha house), whereupon the accused persons hit the Padawa with tractor; as the Padawa was to fell, the complainant and his family run to save themselves, but the accused persons tried to run the tractor over the wife of the complainant; during the course of which his child fell and his wife became unconscious; his wife also lost the child which she was carrying in her womb during pregnancy; upon hearing the hue and cry, some villagers came to the rescue of the complainant and his family, whereupon the accused persons ran away by driving one tractor, while the other tractor jammed in the Padawa. 2.2. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the alleged incident happened on count of some land dispute, as was pending between parties. 2.3. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused persons and the complainant's injured wife was examined by the doctor, while the investigation already commenced. 2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after investigation into the FIR, a charge-sheet under Sections 427, 447, 323, 325 & 307 IPC before the competent court; wherefrom upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned trial court. 2.4. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after investigation into the FIR, a charge-sheet under Sections 427, 447, 323, 325 & 307 IPC before the competent court; wherefrom upon committal, the case was transferred to the learned trial court. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that vide order dated 23.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC, but the trial was ordered in relation to the remaining offences; upon the said charges being denied by the accused-respondents, they were made to stand the trial. 2.5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that that aforementioned factual matrix, being supported by the disclosures and evidence in the record of the case, clearly reveals that owing to some land dispute between the parties, the gruesome act in question has been committed by the accused-respondents; this is more so, when the complainant was the lawful owner of the land in dispute and the accused-Kirparam wants to oust the complainant from the said land, by adopting unlawful means and committing unlawful act in question. 2.6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the gruesome act on the part of the accused-respondent is also substantiated by the fact that due to the tractor being driven over the legs of the complainant's wife, she sustained simple as well as grievous injuries, including 3-4 fractures, coupled with miscarriage of the child in her womb. 2.7. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the aforementioned factual matrix and the evidence placed on record before the learned trial court by the prosecution, which sufficiently and substantially proved the prosecution case against the accused-respondents, were amply sufficient for the learned trial court to convict and sentence the accused-respondent, appropriately. However, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it, acquitted the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.05.1999, of the charges levelled against them, and thus, the said judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law, and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that there are cross criminal cases between the parties, apart from a litigation, pertaining to a land dispute, pending between them. 3.1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that there are cross criminal cases between the parties, apart from a litigation, pertaining to a land dispute, pending between them. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the present complainant-Devi Singh was the aggressor party, and thus, instead of the accused-respondents, the complainant alone ought to be arrayed as the accused-respondents. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the record clearly reveals that the present criminal proceeding has been launched by the complainant against the accused-respondents just to falsely implicated them so as to enable the complainant to settle the personal scores with the accused-respondents, and thus, the present criminal proceeding is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law; the same is clearly detrimental to the prosecution case. 3.3. Learned counsel further submits that the factum of the complainant being the real and the sole aggressor is further substantiated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in the cross case lodged against the complainant himself; the witnesses in the said case makes it amply clear that the accused-Poonaram in fact sustained various grievous injuries and the injuries dangerous to life, at the hands of the complainant himself and his other companions; the same is clearly substantiated by the medical evidence placed on record in the record of the cross case; thus, as per learned counsel such factual matrix strikes at the substratum of the prosecution case against the present accused respondents. 3.4. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon duly appreciating the complete evidence placed on record before it, more particularly, when the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges against the accused-respondents. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned trial court, before passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents, has made due analysis of the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also duly weighed the evidence placed on record before it, pertaining to the present case against the respondents, vis-a-vis, the evidence placed by the accused-respondents in the cross-case against the complainant. 5. 5. This Court finds that the learned trial court, after giving a thoughtful and due consideration to the factual and legal matrix of the case, rightly opined that both the parties have not led correct and substantial evidence in the present case as well as the cross-case to prove the case against the accused-concerned; the same clearly point towards false implication of the accused concerned in the case. 6. This Court further finds that the cross criminal cases as launched by the accused-respondents and the complainant are nothing but a methodology devised to settle personal scores between them, owing to the pending lis pertaining to a land dispute; therefore, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents as well as the complainant in the present case as well as the cross case, of the charges levelled against them. 7. This Court also finds that the common judgment of acquittal, both in the present case as well as the cross case, as passed by the learned trial court, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find a case to be made out so as to warrant any interference in the well reasoned speaking judgment dated 25.05.1999 passed by the learned trial court in favour of the accused-respondents. 9. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellant-State is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.