Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1425 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Madan Lal S/o Dhanna Ram

2024-10-17

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 09.05.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District - Pali in Sessions Case No.17/1995, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on 17.02.1995 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Sameer Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State are that on 17.02.1995, in the evening at about 08:00 p.m. in village Kothar, Bhaga Ram was attacked by the present accused-respondents Mangi Lal and Madan Lal with an axe and knife and that injuries were caused on his neck, chest and rest of the body parts, which were dangerous to life and due to the said injuries, he passed away. It was reported that Smt. Rambha Devi, mother of the deceased and Smt. Sukhi, wife of the deceased saw the incident and they stated that the injuries were caused by the accused-respondents. 4. On the basis of the information (Ex.P/15) given by PW Smt. Rambha Devi, mother of the deceased, an FIR bearing No.10/1995 was lodged at P.S. Nana, District - Pali. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial commenced accordingly. 5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 18 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 30 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and two defence documents were exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondents. The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their 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-respondents, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.05.1996, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. Mr. 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-respondents, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.05.1996, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. Mr. Sameer Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that out of the 18 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the core witnesses are PW-7 – Smt. Sukhi (wife of the deceased) and PW-11 – Smt. Rambha Devi (mother of the deceased) who were examined as the eye witnesses in the present case. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that both wife and mother of the deceased had rushed to the spot after they were informed by Panna Lal but the said Panna Lal has never been examined by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that other witnesses who are crucial to the case namely, PW-3 – Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 – Kapoora Ram and PW-5 – Bheema Ram turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. 7.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that though the Doctor who conducted the postmortem has not been examined and that there are other discrepancies but still there is a strong evidence of eye witnesses which have supported the case and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken this Court to the cross-examination of PW-7 – Smt. Sukhi (wife of the deceased) and PW-11 – Smt. Rambha Devi (mother of the deceased), both the eye witnesses in their evidence stated that Panna Lal came to their house and told them that Mangi Lal (deceased) was being beaten and when they rushed to the spot, they found that the accused-respondent Madan Lal was stabbing the deceased with knife and that the other accused-respondent Mangi Lal was also hitting him. Both the witnesses have deposed that they made hue and cry upon which Bheema, Ramesh and Kapoora rushed to the spot. 7.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that once there are two eye witnesses who are supporting the case of the prosecution in the said case, despite that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated their evidence in true perspective and wrongly arrived at a conclusion of acquittal of the accused-respondents. 8. On the other hand Mr. 7.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that once there are two eye witnesses who are supporting the case of the prosecution in the said case, despite that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated their evidence in true perspective and wrongly arrived at a conclusion of acquittal of the accused-respondents. 8. On the other hand Mr. D.S. Jasol, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the core case of the prosecution rests upon the statements of the two eye witnesses i.e PW-7 – Smt. Sukhi and PW-11 – Smt. Rambha Devi. 8.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents drew attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of both these witnesses. The cross-examination of PW-7 reflects that she deposed that she could not rush to the spot as she was pregnant and her mother-in-law was also having a weak eye-sight. She further deposed in her cross-examination that before they reached the spot, the accused-respondents Madan Lal and Mangi Lal had already run away. The relevant portion of her cross-examination is reproduced as under:- ^^eSa nkSM+dj ugha x;h Fkh cPpk D;ksafd esjs isV esa Fkk eSa xHkZorh Fkh] esjh lklw dks de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA gekjs tkus ls igys enuyky o ekaxhyky Hkkx dj pys x;s FksA eSaus esjs ?kj ls gh ns[kk fd eqyfteku Hkkx jgs gSaA esjs gkFk esa csVjh FkhA ckgj va/ksjk Fkk blfy;s esjs gkFk esa csVjh Fkh eSaus rks csVjh ls gh ns[kk FkkA^^ 8.2 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has further taken this Court to the cross-examination of PW-11 who has deposed in her statement that it was a dark night. She further deposed that she cannot see in the night and she can see in the day light only. She further deposed that this condition of her weak eye-sight has been existing for the last 5 years. She further deposed that she cannot see in the night and she can see in the day light only. She further deposed that this condition of her weak eye-sight has been existing for the last 5 years. In cross-examination she has not specifically pointed out her presence at the site also which is reproduced as under:- ^^pkSjkgs ij ykbZV ugha Fkh tgka Hkxkjke dh yk'k iM+h Fkh ogka ij ykbZV ugha FkhA ge va/ksjs esa gh ogka x;s FksA eq>s de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA eq>s jkr esa de fn[kk;h nsrk gS fnu esa fn[kk;h nsrk gSA ml jkr dks Hkh eq>s de fn[kk;h fn;k FkkA eq>s 5 o"kksZa ls de fn[kk;h nsrk gSA- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ;g lgh gS fd lq[kh eq>s ?kVuk LFky ij gkFk idM+ dj ys x;h FkhA eSa nkSM+dj ekSds ij ugha x;h Fkh /khjs&/khjs x;h FkhA^^ 8.3 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents also drew attention of this Court to the cross-examination of PW-11 Smt. Rambha Devi in which she has stated that Panna Lal usually did not come to her house and once a fight took place between Bhaga Ram and Panna Lal in which Bhaga Ram had hit Panna Lal with lathi blow. The above deposition of PW-11 during her cross-examination brings said Panna Lal under the doubt for commission of the crime in question. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the material available on record. 10. This Court after examining the peculiar factual matrix and testimonies of 18 prosecution witnesses and after seeing 30 Exhibits, finds that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion of acquittal of both the accused-respondents because the whole prosecution case rests upon the testimonies of PW-7 and PW-11, who are the wife and mother of the deceased, respectively. 12. This Court further observes that PW-7- Smt. Sukhi (wife of the deceased) in her cross-examination has specifically stated that the incident took place late at night and that she had a torch. She further stated that she was pregnant and her mother-in-law had a weak eye-sight and could not see at night and thus, they were going slow to the said place of incidence. She has also stated that before they reached to the spot, the accused-respondents had already run away from there. 13. She further stated that she was pregnant and her mother-in-law had a weak eye-sight and could not see at night and thus, they were going slow to the said place of incidence. She has also stated that before they reached to the spot, the accused-respondents had already run away from there. 13. This Court also observes that PW-11 – Smt. Rambha Devi (mother of the deceased) has stated that she had a weak eye-sight from the last 5 years and could not see at night and the place of incident was fully dark. The learned Trial Court has noted the collapse of the two eye witnesses and the fact of turning hostile of three crucial witnesses i.e. PW-3 – Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 – Kapoora Ram and PW-5 – Bheema Ram, is also a key element in the judgment arrived at by the Trial Court. 14. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court though has deprecated the conduct of the prosecution but at the same time did not find any material to find the allegations to be true against the present accused-respondents. 15. 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.” 16. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 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. 17. 17. 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 judgments, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 18. 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. 19. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 20. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond each 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-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to do so. 21. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.