JUDGMENT : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.PC. has been preferred claiming the following relief: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.” 2. The matter pertains to an incident occurred in the year 1993 and the present appeal is pending since the year 1996. 3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No.35/94 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwara Ram & Anr.), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine 447 IPC Two months’ S.I. (each of the accused-appellants) 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment (each of the accused-appellants) Rs.200/- (each of the accused-appellant), in default, to undergo further two months’ R.I. 323 IPC Six Months’ R.I. 325/34 IPC One year’s R.I. (each of the accused-appellants) Rs.200/- (each of the accused-appellants), in default, to undergo further two months’ S.I. 4. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused-appellant No.1-Bhanwara Ram since already expired, therefore, the instant appeal qua him already stood abated, as reflected in the order dated 15.05.2024. Thus, now the present appeal survives only against accused-appellant No.2-Mst. Dhapa, and the arguments were heard only to the extent of the said surviving accused-appellant, and the adjudication in the instant appeal is being made accordingly. 5. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 18.04.1993, statement of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, who was admitted in Sri Dungargarh Government Hospital, was recorded by the police (P.S. Dungargarh), wherein she stated that one of her agricultural field was situated at Rohi Momasar in which she was living, in a Dhani, alongwith her husband and children. 5.1. As per the said statement, on the west and east sides of the said field, there situated the fields of accused-appellant Bhanwara Ram (now deceased), and on the western side field, the said accused-appellant (now deceased) was living in a Dhani. There was no way to reach the eastern side of the field, and thus, the accused-appellant (now deceased) wanted to approach his field forcefully, through the field of Mst. Bhanwari Devi. 5.2. It was further stated by Mst. There was no way to reach the eastern side of the field, and thus, the accused-appellant (now deceased) wanted to approach his field forcefully, through the field of Mst. Bhanwari Devi. 5.2. It was further stated by Mst. Bhanwari Devi that on 18.04.1993 itself in the morning i.e. at around 11-12 o’clock, she, her husband Rewantram and Khetaram son of her brother-in-law (Devar-Jetha Ram) were at the Dhani of Mst. Bhanwari Devi. At that time, Gopiram son of the accused-appellant (now deceased) came on his camel-cart and started going through the field of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, which was objected to by her husband and Kheta Ram. 5.2.1. When the family member of Mst. Bhanwari Devi did not let him Gopiram go through their field, he climbed the nearby Teebada and called out to his family members. 4.2.1. On such calling, his (Gopiram’s) father i.e. accused-appellant (now deceased) who was having Jei, his mother and sister, who were also carrying Jei, reached the place (field of Mst.Bhanwari Devi). 5.2.2. On their arrival, the accused-appellant (now deceased) started abusing the complainant party. The accused-appellant (now deceased) inflicted a blow on the head of the husband of Mst. Bhanwari Devi with the use of Jei, due to which she fell on the ground; however, the accused-appellant (now deceased) and his son Gopiram continued to inflict blows. The said act, upon being intervened by the brother-in-law (Khetaram) of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, he was also subjected to beating by the family member(s) of the accused-appellant (now deceased); as a result of the said act, the complainant party sustained injuries. Thereupon, the members of the complainant party raised alarm by shouting, and Bhadar ram, Shankar Lal and Suganaram came to their rescue and on seeing the said three persons, the members of the accused party left the injured members of the complainant party and fled from the place of the incident. 5.2.3. As a result of the said act of the accused party, the husband of Mst. Bhanwari Devi died on the spot and his dead body was lying at the place of incident, while Mst. Bhanwari Devi and son of her brother-in-law (Khetaram) sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital in a jeep by her brother-in-law i.e. Suganaram. 5.3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered by the police and the investigation commenced. Bhanwari Devi and son of her brother-in-law (Khetaram) sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital in a jeep by her brother-in-law i.e. Suganaram. 5.3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered by the police and the investigation commenced. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants under Sections 302/34, 325/34, 323/34, 447 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(8)(10) of the Scheduled Castese and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ’Act of 1989’). 5.4. The accused-appellants were charged under Section 447, 302 IPC (in alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC), 325, 325/34 & 323 IPC (in alternative under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC) and Sections 3(1)(2)(5) of the Act of 1989. The accused-appellants denied the charge and sought trial. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were produced for examination and 33 documents were exhibited for examination; in defence, one document was produced and no witness was produced on behalf of the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants denied the statements rendered against them by the prosecution witnesses and pleaded their false implication in the criminal case. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as above. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that PW.1-Bhanwari Devi and PW.2-Khetaram both were eye-witnesses, and as per their testimonies, no specific role in commission of the crime in question is attributable to the accused-appellant. It was further submitted that in their testimonies, the said witnesses also did not depose anything which could specifically establish that the accused-appellant caused any injury to the deceased. 6.1. It was also submitted that there is no evidence on record with regard to the alleged common intention, because the entire incident had happened suddenly, nor any pre-planning was there so as to cause murder of the deceased on the part of the accused-appellant in collusion with others, and therefore, she cannot be prosecuted under Section 302 IPC on the ground of the alleged common intention. 6.2. 6.2. It was further submitted that the concerned police authority recovered the Jayee (weapon) on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellant (now deceased) as stated by PW.-10-Inder Kumar Vyas (I.O.), and therefore, it is clear that the accused-appellant-Dhapu was not involved in commission of the crime in question. 6.3. It was also submitted that the accused-appellant is a 70 years old lady and she was on bail during trial, in pursuance of her sentence being suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.04.1996. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, while submitting that accused-appellant caused the death of the deceased, and the said prosecution version was fully supported by the eye witnesses without a single contradiction. 7.1. It was further submitted that the accused-appellant caused a total of 20 injuries to the deceased, which were sufficient to cause his death. It was also submitted that as per PW.1-Bhanwari Devi and PW.2-Khetaram, who intervened during the fight, had also sustained injuries, during such intervention, and also stated that the same were caused by the accused-appellant. 7.2. It was further submitted that the accused-appellants were having common intention to cause the death of the deceased, and therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. This Court observes that the concerned police authority had recorded the statement (Parcha Bayan-Ex.P/1) of PW.1, whereafter, FIR (Ex.P.12) was registered and the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 325, 323, 447 IPC along with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (2),(5) of the Act of 1989. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned judgment whereby though under certain provisions of law, as aforementioned, conviction of the accused-appellants was made, but they were acquitted under Section 3 (2),(5) SC/ST Act. 10. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned judgment whereby though under certain provisions of law, as aforementioned, conviction of the accused-appellants was made, but they were acquitted under Section 3 (2),(5) SC/ST Act. 10. This Court further observes that the two eye-witnesses to the incident in question i.e. PW.1-Bhanwari Devi (wife of the deceased) and PW.2-Khetaram (nephew of the deceased) stated that the accused-appellant’s son Gopiram came on a bullock Cart (Belgadi) in their field, which was objected by the deceased while stating that there was no path way for the said bullock cart (Belgadi) to run through the field, upon which Gopiram shouted and called his family including the accused-appellant, whereafter the accused-appellant (now deceased) came with a Jei and also other accused along with surviving accused-appellant came with Chosangi, and the accused-appellant-Bhanwara Ram attacked on the deceased’s head as a result whereof, he fell down on the ground, but even after the same he was subjected to beating by the accused-appellants. 11. This Court also observes that from the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, it is clear that there occurred a sudden fight between deceased’s family and accused’s family with regard to dispute pertaining to the way in the field. Both the eye witnesses i.e. PW.1 & PW.2 stated that the accused-appellant-Bhanwara Ram attacked on the deceased’s head; the specific allegation is only against the accused-appellant (now deceased) and nothing specific is on record there as against the surviving accused-appellant, as to which specific injury has been caused by her and on which part of the deceased’s body, which has resulted into his death. 12. This Court, in view of the above observation, finds that there was no pre-planning on the part of the surviving accused-appellant pertaining to commission of the crime in question; even the Jei and Chosangi, which were being carried by the surviving accused-appellant were not weapons, but are regular tools, which are used for agricultural purposes and the same were not recovered by the concerned police authority, and therefore, in the entire incident in question, the intention, on the part of the surviving accused-appellant, is clearly missing. 13. 13. This Court also observes that the son (Gopi Ram) of the surviving accused-appellant, upon arriving at the field of the deceased, shouted in distress, whereupon the surviving accused-appellant reached the field of the deceased immediately, without any pre-meditation or pre-planning, which clear reflects that there was no common intention or common object on the part of the surviving accused-appellant to cause murder of the deceased. 13.1. Thus, looking into the fact that in commission of the crime in question, prime role has been attributed to the accused-appellant (now deceased), which is not so in the case of the surviving accused-appellant, and therefore, the adjudication qua the surviving accused-appellant has to be made independent from that of the accused-appellant (now deceased). 14. This Court also observes that the concerned police authority recovered the Jei on the basis of the information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the accused-appellant (now deceased), but no recovery was made from the surviving accused-appellant. 15. This Court further observes that as per the aforesaid testimonies of eye witnesses PW.1 & PW.2 as well as other evidence on record, the surviving accused-appellant was having no intention to cause the death of the deceased and no specific role in commission of the crime in question was attributed to her, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in law to convict the surviving accused-appellant vide the impugned judgment. 16. This Court also observes that when the judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided under Section 386 of Cr.PC, which reads as under:- (b) in an appeal from a conviction— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same— 17. Now, as regards, the scope of interference in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 15 SCC 263 , as hereunder:- …... 10. In Rama v. State of Rajasthan [ (2002) 4 SCC 571 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 829], the Court has stated about the duty of the appellate court in the following terms: (SCC p. 572, para 4 “4. … It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law.” …... 12. Recently, a three-Judge Bench in Majjal v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 6 SCC 798 ] has ruled thus: (SCC p. 800, para 7) “7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial court's assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court's concurrence with the trial court's view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the matter.” 18. This Court also observes that there are reliable and cogent evidence on record that the accused-appellant’s conviction deserves to be reversed, from conviction to acquittal, as provided under Section 386(b)(i) of Cr.P.C “reverse the finding and sentence and acquit”. 19. This Court also observes that there are reliable and cogent evidence on record that the accused-appellant’s conviction deserves to be reversed, from conviction to acquittal, as provided under Section 386(b)(i) of Cr.P.C “reverse the finding and sentence and acquit”. 19. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, as well as in view of the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.1996 passed by the learned Session Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No.25/1994 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawara Ram & Ors.), qua the surviving accused-appellant Mst. Dhapa, the surviving accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34, 325/34, 323 and 447 IPC. The surviving accused-appellant was granted bail, vide order dated 02.04.1996 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, whereby the sentence as awarded to her vide the impugned judgment was suspended. Her bail bonds stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.