Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1943 (RAJ)

Devaram S/o Kapuraram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-12-06

FARJAND ALI, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal, instituted under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”), has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 40/2021. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent–accused of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeal are that, on 06.04.2021, the complainant, Devaram, submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) before the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, alleging that his sister, Anasi Devi, was married to the respondent–accused, Bhutaram, nearly four decades ago. He stated that the matrimonial relationship had been discordant and that the accused had, on an earlier occasion, assaulted Anasi, causing a fracture in her arm. According to the complainant, on the night of 01.04.2021, Anasi Devi and the accused were present in their house situated at a short distance from the complainant’s residence. 2.1 It is alleged that during the night, the accused brutally assaulted Anasi with sticks and sharp-edged weapons, inflicting grievous injuries on her knees, joints, limbs, and vital parts of the body. Her arm, previously fractured, was stated to have been left dangling as a consequence of the beating. On hearing her cries, neighbour Dargaram is said to have reached the spot, by which time Anasi had already succumbed to the assault. 2.2 The complainant further alleged that the accused, in connivance with others, removed the dead body to their residence in Kampala and informed the complainant’s family that Anasi was unwell. When the complainant’s younger brother reached there, he found that the body was already being taken for cremation. According to the complainant, the deceased’s in-laws proceeded to cremate the body in haste with the intention of obliterating all traces of the offence. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Bhadrajun registered FIR No. 53/2021 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned acquittal is founded on conjectures and mechanical rejection of material evidence, suffers from patent perversity. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned acquittal is founded on conjectures and mechanical rejection of material evidence, suffers from patent perversity. The learned trial Court erred in discarding the prosecution case merely because the eyewitnesses resiled, ignoring that their statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, being public documents admissible under Section 80 of the Evidence Act, carried intrinsic reliability. The circumstantial evidence, including recoveries from the true place of occurrence, the Mauka Naksha, prior conduct of the accused, and the false defence of an alleged fall from a staircase that did not exist, remained wholly unshaken. The Court below overlooked the mandate of Section 7 of the Evidence Act and failed to appreciate the chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably to homicidal death. The judgment thus reflects misdirection in law and misreading of evidence, warranting its reversal and conviction of the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon a thorough perusal of the record, it becomes manifest that the appellant is admittedly not a witness of the occurrence; his assertions rest merely on perception and doubt that the accused might have caused the death of his sister. Suspicion, howsoever grave, perception, howsoever strong, and conclusions founded upon mere surmises and conjectures can never take the place of cogent, credible and admissible evidence. 5.1 The statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, though carrying different degrees of sanctity, one recorded by the police and the other before a Magistrate, remain, in essence, pre-charge investigative material. Such material may justify framing of charge, but unless converted into substantive evidence at trial, it cannot form the foundation of conviction. 5.2 If the statements made before the police, whether accepted or not by the witness during trial, were to be treated as having conclusive value, then the very purpose of holding a trial would stand defeated. The charge-sheet itself is based on what the police recorded during investigation. Had that alone been sufficient to secure conviction, there would have been no necessity to summon witnesses for their deposition under oath during the course of trial. The charge-sheet itself is based on what the police recorded during investigation. Had that alone been sufficient to secure conviction, there would have been no necessity to summon witnesses for their deposition under oath during the course of trial. The legal position is well-settled that statements made before the police and the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC have no evidentiary value unless duly affirmed or reiterated before the Court during trial. The statements recorded during investigation can be taken in the course of trial for contradiction, sometimes omission, improvement or material improvement, and sometimes for a limited purpose of contradiction, but by no stretch of imagination can such statements be taken as a piece of evidence, sufficient enough to pass a judgment of conviction. In fact, the things above are the material collected during investigation and bears its main importance up to reaching conclusion of investigation, taking cognizance and upto the stage of framing of charges. After commencement of trial, the above material is required to be converted into legally admissible evidence, which can be used for adjudication of guilt. We must underscore that the sanctity of trial lies in the testimony rendered on oath before the Court. What the witness might have told the police or a judicial Magistrate during investigation, if not affirmed in Court cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence. 5.3 This Court is of the view that the material collected during investigation does not ipso facto partake the character of evidence. It is only at the stage of trial that such material is required to be converted into legally admissible evidence. If it is not asserted rather unconverted, it cannot be read in evidence. The substantive piece of evidence is what the witness deposes before the Court during trial, and not the statements recorded at any anterior stage, whether under Sections 161 or 164 of the CrPC. The law requires that a witness, during trial, must depose, insinuate, or make accusations in the courtroom under oath in the presence of the accused. No conviction can be sustained merely on the basis of a police statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, particularly when the witness, while deposing on oath before the trial court, denies having made such a statement. No conviction can be sustained merely on the basis of a police statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, particularly when the witness, while deposing on oath before the trial court, denies having made such a statement. 5.4 The doctrine stands elucidated with greater clarity when read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and CrPC. Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act delineates the threefold stages of a witness’s examination, examination-in- chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. Examination-in- chief is the primary narration of facts by a witness; cross- examination is the adversarial test through which the opposing party probes the veracity, consistency and credibility of such testimony; and re-examination is confined to clarifying matters that may have arisen in cross-examination. Section 273 of the CrPC mandates that all evidence shall be recorded in the presence of the accused, ensuring that any insinuation or imputation made against him surfaces before his own eyes. This statutory requirement embodies the foundational principle of natural justice, that no person shall be condemned unheard. It equally affords the accused the invaluable right to have such assertions tested through cross-examination and to thereafter lead evidence in his defence, should he so choose. Section 231 of the CrPC further reinforces this procedural safeguard by prescribing that the prosecution evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused, and after such evidence is adduced, the accused is granted the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, followed by the stage where he may enter upon his defence. 5.5 In the conspectus of these provisions, whenever a witness deposes anything adverse to the accused, the Court is duty-bound to adhere to the structured process envisaged under Section 137 of the Evidence Act. The witness must first be examined-in-chief; the accused must then be afforded the right to cross-examine and the prosecution may, if necessary, seek re-examination. This statutory requirement is not a mere technicality, it is the very architecture through which truth is distilled in a criminal trial. 5.6 It is settled that statements under Section 161 CrPC are not to be signed by the witness and if signed, the statement becomes inadmissible in evidence under Section 162 CrPC. Such statements are only relevant for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration under Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act and do not constitute substantive evidence. 6. 5.6 It is settled that statements under Section 161 CrPC are not to be signed by the witness and if signed, the statement becomes inadmissible in evidence under Section 162 CrPC. Such statements are only relevant for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration under Sections 145 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act and do not constitute substantive evidence. 6. Now, moving on to the contention of the counsel for the appeallant that the deceased was subjected to beating, it is nothing but a bald, uncorroborated assertion, which cannot assume the character of legal proof in the absence of supporting evidence. The most neutral and reliable piece of evidence is the post-mortem report. A meticulous examination of the PMR reveals only two injuries, swelling with deformity on the right forearm, and an abrasion between the index and middle finger of the left hand. These injuries, in the ordinary course of human conduct and in the general understanding of this Court, may very well arise from a fall from a staircase. This fact, that the deceased fell from the staircase has been affirmed by PW-20 Jetharam, the son of the deceased, and no one could be a better person to corroborate to this fact than her own son. There is no reason to disbelieve him, particularly when the deceased had been married for four decades. Had the marriage been recent, considerations regarding cruelty might have arisen, but four decades of matrimony substantially dilute such presumptions. 6.1 Coming to the offence under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must establish intention to kill or the infliction of bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ordinarily, such intention is reflected through use of a weapon or injuries on vital parts of the body and such features are conspicuously absent in the present case. The appellant has not been able to point out any material on the basis of which a judgment of acquittal can be overturned into conviction. 7. It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further fortification after his acquittal by a reasoned judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and should show reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned judgment of acquittal. 7. It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further fortification after his acquittal by a reasoned judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and should show reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned judgment of acquittal. It should be kept in mind that until and unless it is observed that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of the material brought on record or it is against any provision of law or is concluded upon misappreciation of evidence; the appellate Court should not interfere in the finding reached by the trial Court. If after re-appreciation of evidence, a stage comes where two views seem possible still the Court should tend to accept the view favourable to the accused. Recently Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the matter of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011 decided on 12.02.2024 had an occasion to expound common principles in respect of the issue involved in like cases while entertaining an appeal against acquittal; the relevant Para No.36 is reproduced 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. 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.” 8. In view of the above and upon scrutiny of the record of the case, we see no reason to disturb the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Judge after anxious consideration of the material on record. 9. Accordingly, there is no force in the Criminal Appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 40/2021 is affirmed. 10. The accused need not to surrender or appear before this Court if any process has been issued then the same be withdrawn immediately. 11. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.