Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Balel Singh S/o Jella Singh

2025-08-18

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 21.11.2001, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) (Sessions Judge), Hanumangarh, in Cr. Case No.01/1997, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 02.10.1996, a parcha bayan was given by the complainant Kaur Singh (PW-12) to Shri Tara Chand, SHO PS Goluwala at Government Hospital, Pillibanga to the effect that when complainant was working at a flour mill near his home with Sawan Singh (PW-2) and Prakash (PW-3) and his wife, Angrej Kaur, was cooking inside the house, the complainant saw Balel Singh entering his home with a wooden stick and being suspicious of his intentions due to an old animosity between their families, he immediately ran towards the house. He found that Balel Singh had already struck his wife with the stick. Hearing the commotion, others gathered, and Balel Singh fled the scene with the weapon. The complainant and others then took his wife to the hospital, where she was declared dead. 3. On the said parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused-respondent and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act. 4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act to the accused respondent. He denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 21.11.2001 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Hence this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-respondent. 8. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 21.11.2001 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Hence this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-respondent. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has not seen the complete record of the case and has also failed to appreciate the statement of the witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. It is further contended that though material witnesses have been declared hostile, but the complainant-husband Kaur Singh (PW-12) in his statement has specifically deposed that when his wife was cooking food at home, at the time, the accused- respondent all of a sudden gave a stick blow on the head of his wife, which resulted in her death. Learned PP submits that statement of the complainant (PW-12) itself is sufficient to convict the accused-respondent. But the learned trial court completely discarded the statement of the complainant (PW-12) and other evidence and acquitted the accused-respondent. It is submitted that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has neither appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, nor has applied its judicious mind, which resulted into loss of substantial justice. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal being per se illegal and erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that in this case, material witnesses PW-1 Shankerlal, PW-2 Sawan Singh, PW-3 Om Prakash @ Prakash and PW-5 Dara Singh, have been declared hostile and the recovery witnesses PW-9 Bhajan Lal, PW-10 Satpal have also been declared hostile by the trial court. Counsel further submits that there is material contradiction in the statement of the complainant Kaur Singh (PW-12). Counsel submits that the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal after proper appreciation of evidence available before it, which requires no interfere from this Court. 9. Counsel further submits that there is material contradiction in the statement of the complainant Kaur Singh (PW-12). Counsel submits that the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal after proper appreciation of evidence available before it, which requires no interfere from this Court. 9. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case. 10. Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we note that there were three eye-witnesses in this case including the complainant. Out of these, two eye-witnesses namely Sawan Singh (PW-2) & Omprakash @ Prakash (PW-3) have been declared hostile and even the recovery witness has also been declared hostile by the trial court. Thus, now the testimony of Kaur Singh (PW-12), who is complainant in this case and husband of the deceased, remains to be evaluated. 11. The learned trial court has discussed the testimony of complainant Kaur Singh (PW-12) in a detailed manner. The complainant in his parcha bayan had mentioned that the accused- respondent had inflicted only one stick blow on the head of the deceased, whereas in his court statement the complainant deposed that the accused-respondent gave three stick blows to the deceased. In his cross-examination, the said witness stated that at the time of incident, his 6-7 years old daughter was present and she saw the accused-respondent causing injury by stick to the deceased and on hearing the hue and cry raised by his minor daughter, the complainant and other two eye-witnesses reached at the place of incident. Thus, it shows that the occurrence had already taken place before reaching the complainant and other two witnesses Sawan Singh (PW-2) and Omprakash @ Prakash (PW-3). The complainant further deposed that he took his wife to the hospital in a jeep. The Police found the blood stain on the seat cover of said jeep and also on the clothes of the complainant. But, neither the clothes of the complainant were taken by the police in its possession nor, the clothes were sent for any examination. The said witness further deposed that he was accompanied by the accused-respondent in jeep while taking the deceased to the hospital. But, neither the clothes of the complainant were taken by the police in its possession nor, the clothes were sent for any examination. The said witness further deposed that he was accompanied by the accused-respondent in jeep while taking the deceased to the hospital. Similarly, the clothes of deceased were also blood stained but neither the clothes were taken into possession nor the same were sent for examination to FSL. Thus, the testimony of the complainant appears to be doubtful and the same cannot be accepted. 12. Moreover, FIR in this case was lodged after a considerable delay and the said delay has not at all been explained by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer Durgadutt (PW-11) has deposed that the occurrence took place when the deceased was cooking food, but he did not recover any utensil using in preparing food by the deceased from the place of occurrence. Thus, the genesis of occurrence is also doubtful. Further, one shoe was recovered from the place of occurrence and another shoe was recovered on the information given by the accused-respondent. 13. But, the prosecution has failed to prove that both the recovered shoes are same and they belonged to the accused-respondent. The prosecution has also failed to prove the blood group of the accused-respondent with the blood stain on the recovered articles. The prosecution further failed to prove that the recovered articles were properly sealed and were sent safely for FSL. 14. On meticulous examination of the evidence, it appears that there is no connecting evidence available on record against the accused-respondent. The prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence on record which can prove the involvement of the accused-respondent in the death of deceased Angrej Kaur. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Phoolchand Rathore reported in 2023 CriLR 724 while observing that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal, recognized that such interference is warranted when it becomes evident that the acquittal was based on an entirely flawed reasoning process, legally erroneous, and involved a perverse approach to the facts of the case. In such circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In such circumstances, where the order of acquittal has led to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice, the Court may reverse the acquittal and convert it into a conviction. In support of this principle, the Court relied upon its prior judgments, emphasizing the exceptional nature of such interference to rectify substantial errors in the acquittal order. these are:- 21. In State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169 , reiterating the same view it was observed: “8. … This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the findings of the High Court, unless there is perverse appreciation of the evidence which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and if the High Court has taken a plausible view this Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal passed in favour of the accused and if two views are possible and the High Court had chosen one view which is just and reasonable, then also this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.” 22. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174 , it was observed: “190. … Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be “not guilty”. …” 16. Similarly in the case of State of Uttrakhand 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 Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand , 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.” 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 459 , 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner/State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. The judgment passed by the learned trial court is detailed, reasoned and justified. Therefore, the same does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality warranting any interference from this Court. 18. With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 19. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.