Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1144 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Ratan Lal Son of Ladhuram

2024-08-27

KULDEEP MATHUR, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal has been filed by the State of Rajathan to challenge the judgment dated 20th December 1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.34/1984 (54/1984). 2. By this judgment, Devkaran was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused, namely, Nandlal and Ladu were convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused, namely, Ratan Lal, Amar Chand, Mst. Radha, Nimba, Mahaveer and Fakir Khan were acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General informs the Court that the criminal appeal preferred by Devkaran vide D.B. Criminal Appeal No.467 of 1988 was dismissed as abated by an order dated 09.11.2022 on account of death of the convict on 26.11.2009. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General further states that Radha wife of Prahalad has passed away during pendency of the present criminal appeal and in view of the order of sentence passed against her this criminal appeal qua Radha who is the respondent No.4 has abated. 5. On the basis of a written report given to the officer incharge of Banera P.S., a crime was registered against 9 persons and, after the investigation, a charge sheet was laid in the Court under sections 302, 323, 324, 147, 447 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the trial, 18 witnesses were produced by the prosecution to establish the charge against Ratan Lal, Amar Chand, Nand Lal, Radha, Ladu, Nimba, Mahaveer, Fakir Khan and Devkaran. According to the prosecution, there are 7 eyewitnesses out of whom PW-1 Madan Lal, PW-6 Kishan and PW-16 Sita Ram are the injured witnesses. 6. By the judgment dated 20th December 1988, Nand Lal and Ladu were convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; Devkaran was convicted under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and, as noticed above, Ratan Lal, Amar Chand, Radha, Nimba, Mahaveer and Fakir Khan were acquitted of the charge framed against them. The Sessions Judge noticed that there was litigation in the Court and a criminal case was also filed by Ratan Lal against the complainant, Sewa Ram and his family, and held that the disputed agricultural land belonged to Ladu, the father of Ratan Lal. 7. The Sessions Judge noticed that there was litigation in the Court and a criminal case was also filed by Ratan Lal against the complainant, Sewa Ram and his family, and held that the disputed agricultural land belonged to Ladu, the father of Ratan Lal. 7. Challenging the acquittal of Ratan Lal, Amar Chand, Nimba, Mahaveer and Fakir Khan, the Additional Advocate General would submit that considering the nature of evidence tendered in the trial it must be held that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and committed murder of Sewa Ram in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly. Submission made at the bar is that once Devkaran who was part of unlawful assembly is convicted for causing death of Sewa Ram the other accused persons cannot be let off lightly or acquitted. 8. In the written report dated 10th March 1984, Madan Lal stated that in the morning about 09:00 AM he was working in the field with his father Sewa Ram and the brothers, namely, Sita Ram, Govind, Narayangopal and Satyanarayangopal. At that time, Ratan Lal, Amar Chand, Devkaran, Radha, Ladu, Nand Lal, Fakir, Nimba and Mahaveer all armed with lathi and dharia came there to take forcible possession of the land in question. He further stated that when his father tried to stop them the accused persons pounced upon him and Devkaran gave a dharia blow on his head and thereafter other accused persons also started assaulting him with lathi and dharia. According to the complainant, Amar Chand, Ratan Lal, Nimba and Ladu assaulted him and caused injuries on various parts of his body including his head. Thereafter, Bhawani Singh and Man Singh arrived at the scene of crime on hearing cries and intervened. 9. The trial Judge extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to Nand Lal and Ladu but this exercise of discretion by the trial judge is also sought to be challenged by the State of Rajasthan in the present criminal appeal. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests power in the criminal Court to order release of an accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition. Sub-section 4 to section 360 Cr.P.C. provides that an order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions when exercising its powers of revision. Sub-section 4 to section 360 Cr.P.C. provides that an order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Sessions when exercising its powers of revision. We may further indicate that section 361 Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory for the trial Judge to record specific reasons in the judgment for not granting the benefit of the provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act which has been dealt with under section 360 Cr.P.C. 10. Having regard to the nature of imputations against Nandlal and Ladu, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter qua them. 11. In the trial, PW-1 Madan Lal who had referred to entry in the revenue record to prove his possession over the land in question could not produce any document. The other documents such as Ex.P/35 and Ex.P/36 did not specifically mention the disputed lands. PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the dispute regarding the subject land was pending in the Court. In their anxiety to involve all the family members of Madan Lal, the prosecution witnesses made some offending statements even against Smt. Radha. We have this also in our mind that the testimony of a related witness needs to be examined with due care and caution. The ongoing dispute between the parties seems to be a definite cause for implicating a large number of persons who were incidentally present at the time of the occurrence. No doubt, relationship is not a ground to discard the evidence tendered by a witness but a criminal Court scrutinizing testimony of such a witness must keep in mind that past enmity can be a reason for false implication. We further find that the crime scene as portrayed by the prosecution witnesses was at best a free fight during which one of the accused assaulted Sewa Ram which proved fatal and he died. The injuries caused by Nand Lal and Ladu who were convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code also do not establish that the accused persons had formed unlawful assembly. As we glance through the evidence of PW-1 Madan Lal, PW-6 Kishan and PW-16 Sita Ram who suffered some injury in the occurrence, we find that learned Sessions Judge rightly held Ratan Lal, Radha, Amar Chand, Nimba, Mahaveer and Fakir Khan not guilty. 12. As we glance through the evidence of PW-1 Madan Lal, PW-6 Kishan and PW-16 Sita Ram who suffered some injury in the occurrence, we find that learned Sessions Judge rightly held Ratan Lal, Radha, Amar Chand, Nimba, Mahaveer and Fakir Khan not guilty. 12. This is too well settled a law that to rope in an accused with the aid of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the prosecution must establish that a crime was committed in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly or, that, every accused forming part of unlawful assembly had knowledge that a crime of the nature which was in fact committed could be committed. This is a legal proposition that to seek conviction of an accused the prosecution must bring cogent and consistent evidence so as to prove the charge. However, the manner of occurrence as spoken by the prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In “Kalyan v. State of U.P.” reported in (2001)9 SCC 632 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the opinion of the trial Court as to credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and due consideration. In “Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh” reported in (1973)2 SCC 808 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the golden threat which runs through the web of administration of justice in a criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 13. As regards the acquittal of five aforementioned accused persons, we are inclined to reiterate in the circumstances of the case that the decision of the trial Court in a criminal case must be accorded primacy. This is the reason that the findings recorded by the trial Court should not be interfered lightly by the High Court. That is so because it was the trial Judge who had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness. In “Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2008)10 SCC 450 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “75. That is so because it was the trial Judge who had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness. In “Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2008)10 SCC 450 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “75. On careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal is unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law. The trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial Court. An acquittal by the trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.” 14. Having the aforesaid principles in mind and after carefully scrutinizing the testimony of the material witnesses, we hold that the prosecution evidence contains more chaff than grain. The trial Judge carefully separated the chaff from the grain and came to a conclusion that Devkaran alone was guilty of causing death of Sewa Ram. 15. Though there is no limitation on the powers of the High Court under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in the matter while dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. However, through judicial pronouncements, certain parameters have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicating the circumstances which may be simply put as “for compelling reasons” that the High Court may re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 16. In “Sheo Swarup & Ors. v. King-Emperor” reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 , the Privy Council observed as under: “...No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. 16. In “Sheo Swarup & Ors. v. King-Emperor” reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 , the Privy Council observed as under: “...No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.” 17. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.37/1990 is dismissed.