Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1271 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mukh Ram, S/o. Harji Ram

2024-09-19

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.4/2000 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukh Ram), whereby the accused respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2000. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that the incident which was reported at 8:00 am on 09.10.1999, occurred at 10:00 pm on 08.10.1999 when the complainant Pappu Ram alongwith his brother Jagdish and cousin Banwari went to the nearby field of their uncle (Chacha) Mukh Ram-accused where deceased Jagdish confronted Mukh Ram as to why he was spreading false rumours about his wife, upon which the accused Mukh Ram (uncle) got annoyed and used a sword to hit the deceased Jagdish due to which deceased Jagdish fell down. Thereafter, the deceased Jagdish was taken to the Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar where he was declared dead. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused respondent, and the trial commenced accordingly. 5. During the course of trial, the evidence of seven prosecution witnesses were recorded in which crucial witness were PW.2- Pappu Ram who was the eye witnesses and brother of the deceased and PW.3-Madan Singh who was the Investigating Officer. Further 19 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and one document was exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondent; whereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-respondent pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question. 6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. 6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the PW.2- Pappu Ram is an eye witness and the analogy drawn by him is such that it cannot be discarded whereas the learned trial Court has proceeded to find lacuna in the testimony of PW.2 Pappu Ram which otherwise is consistent. 7.1 Learned counsel for the State further submits that the doctor had also supported the injury, to be the cause of death, thus, it was a case where the conviction should have been arrived at. The minor discrepancies in the prosecution case were not sufficient enough to overlook the prosecution case and to collapse the same. 7.2 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the description of one injury on the chest and then one on the neck is also a corollary and therefore should not go in favour of the accused. 7.3 Learned counsel for the State also submits that the analogy of carrying the body of deceased on a cot and then shifting it on a camel cart was also a part of natural flow of event which happened resulting into the deceased being taken to the hospital and being declared dead. 7.4 Learned counsel for the State also submits that PW.2-Pappu Ram has accepted in his deposition that they had gone to the Police Station at Hindumal Kote at about 03:00 am but the report was taken only at about 07:00 am which is there on record as Ex.-P/2. 7.5 Learned counsel for the State also submits that in the given circumstances where the place of incident was a private field and it was an inter-family altercation, the question of any independent prosecution witness is remote and thus, the circumstantial evidence connecting the death of the deceased and the reason for altercation as well as the consistency of the statement of PW.2-Pappu Ram who was also the complainant in the case is sufficient to nail down the accused Mukh Ram in the offence alleged. 8. On the other hand, Ms. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Kaushik learned counsel for the accused-respondent while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the description of the injuries also creates a doubt upon the incident. 8.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further submits that the critical witness Banwari who was present at the place of incident was not produced as prosecution witness and thus, the prosecution having been silent on that also creates a grave doubt in the present circumstances. 8.2 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that PW.3- Madan Singh, the investigating officer in his deposition has simply evaded the question regarding the prime witness Banwari, by saying that he forgot to add him as witness, which is highly improbable. 8.3 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that the incident had happened at 10:00 pm which had come on the record at 08:00 am on the next day and in the meantime a story could possibly be developed with the help of the near relatives particularly when PW.2- Pappu Ram, the eye witness is real brother of the deceased Jagdish. 8.4 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that the possibility of PW.2-Pappu Ram accompanying the deceased Jagdish in the given circumstance when he was not present at the field (site in question) also is a remote possibility and creates a doubt on the prosecution story. 8.5 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that the brothers were not living together and thus the possibility of Pappu Ram having been planted as an eye witness is highly probable. 8.6 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent pointed out that the incident was of 10:00 pm and reporting was next day at 08:00 am adds strength to the such possibility of planting the witness. 8.7 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that once a doubt is created as to the credibility of PW.2-Pappu Ram being an eye witness should not be given the benefit of such doubt to the accused-respondent. 8.8 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that in case any investigation of Banwari had taken place then there would have been a possibility of co-relating the whole thing as per the narration of the complainant but the moment the Investigating Officer (PW.-3) said that he had forgotten to consider Banwari as witness, the prosecution falls in his shadow. 8.8 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that in case any investigation of Banwari had taken place then there would have been a possibility of co-relating the whole thing as per the narration of the complainant but the moment the Investigating Officer (PW.-3) said that he had forgotten to consider Banwari as witness, the prosecution falls in his shadow. 8.9 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further submits that as per the first narration, the complainant, had submitted that there was only one blow of the sword which resulted into the death but there was another injury on chest which reflects that PW.2-Pappu Ram was not aware of the exact version. 8.10 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that a sword had been recovered and the word Kripan has been used for it, whereas both are different kind of blades in terms of technicalities. 8.11 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent further submits that the distance shown by the prosecution between eye witness PW.2- Pappu Ram and the actual scene is about 165 feet and at 10’ O clock at night it could be an impediment to see an exact version of the incident as an eye witness, and the same has also been demonstrated from the site plan which is Ex. -P/6. 8.12 Learned counsel for the accused-respondent also submits that the evasive reply of PW.3-Madan Singh casts shadow on the story of the prosecution, whereas PW.2- Pappu Ram being the brother, is only an interested witness and on his sole testimony the prosecution case could not have been tested and thus the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at the decision of acquitting the accused-respondent. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the record of the case. 10. This Court observes that there are certain discrepancies which were unexplained as the complainant has sympathetically submitted that Banwari was there at the scene whereas Banwari has not been talked about by the Investigating Officer at all, so much so, that, in his deposition before the Court the Investigating Officer PW.3- Madan Singh has deposed that he forgot to include Banwari as a witness, whereas, there could be a plausible explanation for not including him as a witness. 11. 11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the incident has happened between the relatives, as the accused-respondent is the Uncle (Chacha) and at the field the altercation had happened because of rumours about wife of Jagdish the deceased and thus, it could be an inter-family rivalry issue which could have resulted into the incident in question. This Court is also conscious of the fact that PW.2- Pappu Ram is the real brother of the deceased and he has been shown by the prosecution to be at a distance of 165 feet from the scene at about 10:00 pm at night with no source of light at the field. 12. This Court also noted that there is discrepancy in the description of the blade on record. The FSL is also not supporting the connection of the accused with the crime as there is grave doubt regarding the FSL report (Ex.P/19) in question which has also been taken into account in the impugned order. There is no other eye witness in the matter. 13. This Court also observed that the incident happened at 10:00 pm at night and was reported at 08:00 am on the next day, however, such delay is possible in such circumstances as the crime has happened in a Rural area. However, the overall conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent is sustainable and even if, there could be two views to the said incident the other view cannot be held to be wrong just because there is an other view plausible. 14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra) : “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra) : “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra) : “38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondent under Section 302 IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witness at a considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 15.1 This Court observes that the said Banwari was present at the place of incident at the relevant time, but was not produced as witness during the trial and no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution in this regard. 15.1 This Court observes that the said Banwari was present at the place of incident at the relevant time, but was not produced as witness during the trial and no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution in this regard. The testimony of PW-2 Pappu Ram was not reliable as allegedly, he has seen the incident in question from a distance of 165 feet at about 10:00 p.m.; that apart, there was no eye witness to the incident in question. Furthermore, the FSL report also did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 19. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-respondent Mukh Ram S/o Harji Ram is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-respondent, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so. 20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.