Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1454 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ugma S/o. Nanda Gurjar

2025-08-05

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ravi Chirania, J. 1. The appellant-State filed an application for leave to appeal before this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 12.07.2012, leave was granted and accordingly, the present regular appeal was registered. In the instant appeal, the appellant-State, through the Public Prosecutor, has challenged the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara Mr. V.K. Arya, RHJS in Sessions Case No. 62/2010, by which all five accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all of them. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the State solely on two grounds numbered (iii) and (iv), as mentioned in the appeal. 3. The two grounds of appeal are quoted below for ready reference: "iii) That eye witnesses Sonu, Pw-23 has clearly stated that deceased was beaten-up severely by the accused respondent and it was on account of these beatings the deceased passed away. No reasons have been given by the learned trial court for disbelieving this natural and trustworthy evidence. As no rebuttal has been offered from the defence side so as to disbelieve the version of this natural witness. The evidence of this witness has been corroborated from the evidence of PW-24 Rampali. iv) That the learned trial court has also committed a serious error of law and facts in not considering that a motive was available with the accused respondents in as much as they were operating under superstitious that the deceased was playing some evil magic under a sort of third power and according to the accused respondent it was the conduct of deceased which led the destruction in their family and for superstitious they had beaten- up the deceased to death, thus the learned trial court wrongly held that there was no motive available with the accused respondents." 4. The above-mentioned grounds show that the State has filed the appeal on the ground that the statement of eyewitness Sonu PW-23, was not properly considered despite her statement being corroborated by the evidence of PW-24 Rampali also. The State further stated in ground (iv) that a motive was indeed available with the accused persons, but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the same and wrongly recorded that no motive was available with the accused-respondents. 5. The State further stated in ground (iv) that a motive was indeed available with the accused persons, but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the same and wrongly recorded that no motive was available with the accused-respondents. 5. As mentioned above, the present appeal is against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be followed while interfering with a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 6. In the case of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka ( 2024 INSC 104 ) decided on 12.02.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: "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." 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Babu SahebaGouda RudraGoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( 2024 INSC 320 ) in Criminal Appeal No.985 of 2010 decided on 19.4.2024 held as under :- "38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Babu SahebaGouda RudraGoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ( 2024 INSC 320 ) in Criminal Appeal No.985 of 2010 decided on 19.4.2024 held as under :- "38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr PC 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. 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. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. " 8. The judgment passed in the case of Babu SahebaGouda RudraGoudar (supra) was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. " 8. The judgment passed in the case of Babu SahebaGouda RudraGoudar (supra) was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025(5) Supreme Court Cases 433. The relevant para of the judgment passed in Constable 907 Surendra Singh (supra) is as under :- "23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such 12 power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to 13 come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the 14 evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’" 9. Similarly in a recent judgment passed in the case of State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta , reported in (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 159 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "6. Trite is the principle that the Appellate Courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; Appellate Courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal. 7. Recently, in Constable 907 Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand4, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24: “24. 7. Recently, in Constable 907 Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand4, one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) referring to various binding precedents of this Court succinctly laid down the principle in the following manner in SCC para 24: “24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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.” 10. A perusal of the above judgments, as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and other similar judgments from time to time, shows that the Appellate Court, while interfering with a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, must follow the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments. 11. Considering the principles as laid down in the above judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we now advert to the facts as noted from the record of the case placed before us and as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, which are as under: (i) According to learned Public Prosecutor, PW-9 Devraj (son of the deceased-Prem Devi) informed the incident to the Police on 24.9.2010. The report is stated to have been recorded by some other person as no hand-written/ typed report was given by PW-9 Devraj as per the record. The report, Exhibit-P/16, reads as follows :- 12. On the basis of the above report, Police registered FIR No.237/2010 for the offence under Sections 147 , 149, 302 IPC and Section 3(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed charge- sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 147 , 149, 302 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 13. The learned trial court framed charges on 22.2.2011. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed charge- sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 147 , 149, 302 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 13. The learned trial court framed charges on 22.2.2011. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 27 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jaidev Gurjar, PW-2 Ugma Ram Gurjar, PW-3 Mangi Daroga, PW-4 Baluram, PW- 5 Pradeep Kumar, PW-6 Jagdish Dholi, PW-7 Devendra Singh, PW- 8 Dalpat Singh, PW-9 Devraj, PW-10 Bhagirath Meena, PW-11 Govind Singh, PW-12 Bhopat Singh, PW-13 Balu Singh, PW-14 Gopal Singh, PW-15 Banshi Lal, PW-15 Netram Choudhary, PW-17 Satpal Choudhary, PW-18 Mahaveer Prasad, PW-19 Sanjay Cheepa, PW-20 Ramdhan Vaishnav, PW-21 Rajendra Kumar, PW- 22 Santosh Singh, PW-23 Soni, PW-24 Rampali, PW-25 Ramdhan Keer, PW-26 Chandra Prakash and PW-27 Nehal Singh. The witness was produced by the accused persons. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., by the trial court. 14. The learned Trial Court after examining the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-23 Kumari Soni, PW-24 Rampali, PW-7 Devendra Singh and PW-8 Dalpat Singh apart from PW-27 Nihal Singh (Investigating Officer) and the other relevant important witnesses and documents noted serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution and by a reasoned and detailed judgment passed the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit majorly referred to the statements made by PW-23 and PW-24. The statement of PW-23 Kumari Sonu, an eye-witness, as per the prosecution, is reproduced hereunder :- 16. A perusal of the statement of PW-23 Sonu Kumari shows that she stated that the accused persons came to their house and caused injury to her aunt i.e. the deceased. She further stated that the incidence is of 8 pm. Most importantly she stated that Dalpat Singh PW-8 informed him about the incident. She further states that the body of her aunt was not brought by Dalpat Singh. 17. According to the prosecution PW-24 Rampali, the real sister of the deceased-Prem Devi, has also supported the version of PW-23 Sonu Kumari. The statement of PW-24 Rampali is as under :- 18. She further states that the body of her aunt was not brought by Dalpat Singh. 17. According to the prosecution PW-24 Rampali, the real sister of the deceased-Prem Devi, has also supported the version of PW-23 Sonu Kumari. The statement of PW-24 Rampali is as under :- 18. A perusal of the statement of PW-24, who is said to have supported the version of PW-23 as per learned Public Prosecutor stated in her statement that the incident was informed to her by Dalpat Singh PW-8 and further Dalpat Singh informed that body of her sister is lying behind the temple and advised them to go and bring the body. 19. According to learned Public Prosecutor PW-23 Kumari Sonu being an eye-witness stated names of the accused persons who caused injuries, on account of which, the deceased died. The above-quoted statements of PW-23 and PW-24 shows that the incident did not occur in their house, rather it was not not even in their presence. Both the witnesses were informed about the incident by PW-8 Dalpat Singh with the specific information that body of the deceased is lying behind temple. The statements leave no doubt about the fact that they are not the eye-witnesses of the incident. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused persons supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and stated that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the judgment of acquittal on the ground that there are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution and further there was no motive with the accused persons to commit the alleged crime. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we shall now examine the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court strictly within the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments, as mentioned above in para 5 to 8 of this judgment. 22. The case was registered on the oral report para-5 to 8 of PW-9 Devraj (son of the deceased) who informed the police, without being on the spot, that he was informed by Dalpat Singh and Devendra Singh that accused persons stopped her mother when she was going towards Nohra and caused injuries by 'lathis' on the alleged superstitious thought that the deceased is using evil magic on their family, which was causing destruction in the family. According to the report, the incident happened on 23.09.2010 at around 08.00 p.m, however, the FIR came to be lodged on the next date i.e. 24.09.2010 at around 11.00 a.m. The two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8, as per the prosecution who first informed about the incident to the complainant PW-9 Devraj about the said incident, turned hostile and did not support the story of the prosecution. The two informers i.e. PW-7 & PW-8 dismantled the complete foundation on which the story of prosecution is based. 23. We have considered the statement of PW-7 Devendra Singh, though declared hostile by the prosecution, who stated in his statement as under: 24. We have also considered the statement of PW-8 Dalpat Singh, also declared hostile by the prosecution, whose statements are as under: " 25. The above two statements of PW-7 and PW-8 show that since inception the complete story as reported by PW-9 Devraj is false and there is no eye-witness of the same. PW-7 and PW-8 have shown complete ignorance about the incident as reported by PW-9 and further PW-7 even refused to recognise the accused person. 26. Further, we have considered the statement of PW-9 Devraj, son of the deceased, who stated that he was informed about the said incident by PW-7 and PW8, as mentioned above in Exhibit P-1 report dated 24.9.2010. When PW-7 and PW-8 expressed no knowledge and information about the incident and also failed to recognise the accused persons then the complete incident as reported by PW-9-complainant Devraj looses its veracity and is nothing more than a bundle of false facts on the basis of which the entire story of prosecution is based. The statement of PW-9 Devraj are reproduced as under:- " 27. PW-23 Kumari Sonu in her statement stated that the accused persons were beating her aunt Prem Devi with sticks, on account of which she (Prem Devi, deceased) ran towards the house of Devi Singh. She specifically named the accused- respondents namely Jeevraj, Lakshmi, Sanwara, Mahaveer. She also stated that her aunt was beaten up with sticks, stones, chain and after severe beatings they left her there only. As per PW-23 place of incident is their house, whereas as per PW-9 the body was found on the road. Further, interestingly as per PW-24 it was PW-8 who informed her that body of deceased is lying behind the temple. As per PW-23 place of incident is their house, whereas as per PW-9 the body was found on the road. Further, interestingly as per PW-24 it was PW-8 who informed her that body of deceased is lying behind the temple. There are serious contradictions in the statements of PW-23, PW-24, PW-7 & PW-8 regarding the incident as reported by PW-9 solely on the basis of the information stated to have been given to him by PW-7 & PW-8. Their statements further shows that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused respondents. 28. We have already noted that PW-7 and PW-8, both declared as hostile by the prosecution, did not support the incident as reported by PW-9 Devraj and further, the serious contradictions as discussed above, declares that PW-23 and PW-24 are not the eye- witnesses of the alleged incident and further PW-7 & PW-8 both witnesses have expressed ignorance about the incident and refused to recognise even the accused persons. 29. Though, learned Public Prosecutor argued only in respect of PW-23 and PW-24, however, while going through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, we have also considered the statement of PW-27 Nehal Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. As per the report Exhibit P-16 dated 24.09.2010 made by PW-9 Devraj, the accused respondent caused the alleged incident as they were under the belief that mother of PW-9 i.e. deceased Prem Devi used to practice evil magic which is causing destruction and damage to the family of the accused-respondents and PW-9 further stated in the report that the accused wanted to purchase the 'bara'/'bara land' ¼ckM+k½ from their mother and therefore they had the motive behind the alleged incident. In the entire investigation as done by PW-27 Nehal Singh, there is no investigation in regard to alleged purchase or sale of land and further neither there is any investigation nor any witness has stated about the alleged magic evil story as narrated in the report by PW-9 Devraj. This shows that no investigation was conducted in respect of the allegations as made in the complaint made by PW-9 and therefore the complete record of case shows that the prosecution and the investigation travelled in two different direction which led to failure of the prosecution story. 30. This shows that no investigation was conducted in respect of the allegations as made in the complaint made by PW-9 and therefore the complete record of case shows that the prosecution and the investigation travelled in two different direction which led to failure of the prosecution story. 30. As per Exhibit P-14, (the site-plan) the body was recovered at the place "X" and there are houses on both the sides. Place "X" is on common public way but not a single neighbour was made witness in the present case. It is difficult to believe that when such an incident had happened, no neighbour noticed the same and therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the alleged incident at all happened at the place of which Exhibit P-14 was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Further PW-23 and PW-24 stated that the incident happened in their house whereas Exhibit P-14 is an open road which further declares the statements of PW-23 and PW-24 as well as Exhibit P-14 as doubtful. According to PW-23 and PW-24 the witness Dalpat Singh i.e. PW-8 informed them that the body is lying behind temple and in the site-plan, there is no mention of temple. Therefore, there is no clear evidence regarding the place of incidence and the site- plan i.e. Exhibit-P/4 cannot be considered to be a correct documentary evidence. 31. On the basis of the above discussion, this Court finds that there are serious material contradictions in the statements of PW-9 (complainant), PW-23 and PW-24, who are stated to be the eye-witnesses and further PW-7 and PW-8 who stated to have given the information first to PW-9 regarding the alleged incident, have also been declared hostile by the prosecution as both these witnesses expressed their ignorance about the complete incident and refused to even recognise the accused persons. This demolishes the complete foundation of the prosecution story. Not only the complainant PW-9 Devraj but PW-23 & PW-24 have stated that they received the information about the incident from PW-8 Dalpat Singh and when the witness PW-8 Dalpat Singh has turned hostile, then the complete story of the prosecution goes. 32. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake in passing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011 and we also find that the learned Trial Court considered the statements and documentary evidence minutely while passing the judgment of acquittal. 32. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake in passing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011 and we also find that the learned Trial Court considered the statements and documentary evidence minutely while passing the judgment of acquittal. Therefore this Court is not inclined to make any interference in the judgment while strictly following the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka , Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Constable 907 Surendra Singh(Supra) and State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta where the principle have been laid down as to the circumstances in which the Appellate Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 33. In terms of the above, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. 34. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.