Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Siyaram And Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 820/2004
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Siyaram s/o Koja Ram,
2. Birji w/o Siya Ram,
3. Koja Ram s/o Hema Ram
4. Bhanna Ram s/o Birda Ram and
5. Bhunda Ram s/o Birda Ram.
All residents of Kuchara, District Nagour.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
Reserved on 01/05/2025
Pronounced on 19/06/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has
challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur (‘Trial
Court’) in Sessions Case No.37/03 (45/02) (State of Rajasthan
Vs. Siyaram & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein
were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147,
148, 447, 323, 324 IPC, in alternative, Sections 324/149, 326
IPC, in alternative 326/149, 307 IPC, in alternative, Sections
307/149 & 302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302/149 IPC, while
extending them the benefit of doubt.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the
year 2002 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
2004.
3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the
learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State,
are that on 17.08.2002, at around 10:30 a.m., one Jairam
(complainant) submitted a written report before the Police Station,
Kuchera, alleging therein that on the said date, at around 8:00
a.m., Koja Ram, Siyaram, Bhundaram, Manaram, Manchilal, Birju
& others, armed with weapons, went to the field of the
complainant party and started uprooting the extra grass from the
fields i.e. doing Ninaan. Thereupon, at around 9:00 a.m., when
the complainant alongwith his father (Ghevarlal) reached the
fields, the complainant’s father asked the accused persons to stop
their act of uprooting the extra grass, whereupon, accused-
Siyaram asked the complainant party as to why the complainant
and his father, came to the field of the accused party, and abused
the complainant party.
3.1. It was further alleged that at that time, accused-Siyaram
inflicted a blow by Kassi upon the head of the complainant’s
father, Kassi blow was also inflicted upon the complainant’s father
by accused-Bhundaram, as a result of which the father of the
complainant fell on the ground, whereupon Bhanna Ram and
Manchilal started beating him with lathi; the complainant tried to
save his father, however the accused Bhanna Ram also inflicted a
lathi blow on him, whereupon, the alleged act was intervened by
Devaram, Arjunram and Bhagaram who saved the complainant
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
and his father, during the course of which, the said Devaram,
Arjunram and Bhagaram also sustained injuries.
3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 307 & 302
IPC, and the investigation began accordingly.
3.3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed against the accused-respondents before the competent Court
and at the stage of framing of charges, under Sections 147, 148,
447, 323, 324, in alternative, Sections 324/149, 326 IPC, in
alternative 326/149, 307 IPC, in alternative, Sections 307/149,
302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302/149 IPC, the same were read
over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and
claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly.
3.4. During the course of trial, the statements of 27 witnesses
(P.W. 1 to P.W. 27) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 47)
were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, whereafter, the
accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal
case in question.
3.5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, while
finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted the accused-respondents
herein of the charges against them, as above, vide the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2003, while extending them the
benefit of doubt; against which, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant-State.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
appellant-State submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in
law as well as facts in acquitting the accused-respondents,
whereas prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-
respondents beyond all reasonable doubts.
3.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
accused-respondents with the intention to acquire the land
belonging to the deceased and one Kojaram s/o Chogaram, under
the pretext of a false identity and that the deceased alongwith the
complainant went to convince them not to do ninaan on their land,
whereupon the accused-respondents attacked the complainant
party with deadly weapons. It is clear from the revenue records
that the land belonged to the deceased, from which an inference
can be drawn that the deceased in an attempt to protect his
property went to convince the accused-respondents peacefully,
however the accused-respondents unlawfully trespassed onto the
land, armed with weapons, and began attacking the accused
without any provocation, whereupon, the complainant party acted
in their defence, owing to the immediate danger to their life and
property.
3.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that owing to the
land dispute, the accused-respondents had the clear motive to
commit the offence in question and were fully aware of their
actions and consequences thereof. The fact that accused-
respondents, equipped with deadly weapons, caused multiple
injuries to the deceased by attacking the deceased several times.
The brutality, as can be seen from the medical evidence on record,
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
with which the accused-respondents caused the death of the
deceased cannot be left unseen.
3.2.1. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Ex.P.30 and
Ex.P. 31, Exp.36, Ex.P. 37, and Ex.P.38 the injury reports of
Ghevar Ram (deceased), Devaram (PW. 26), Arjunram (PW. 24),
Bhagaram (PW.33), and Jairam (complainant), respectively, show
that the attack by accused-respondents caused the death of the
deceased and also resulted into multiple grievance injuries to the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses, which further strengthens the
prosecution story against the accused-respondents.
3.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
deceased was immediately taken to a hospital for proper medical
assistance, and that the cause of death was the shock due to the
multiple injuries, and not because lack of medical treatment,
which found corroboration by the Postmortem Report (Ex.P. 1),
testimonies of Jairam (complainant) and Dr. Sumanlata Khatri
(PW.1).
4. Per Contra, Ms. Anita Gehlot, learned Amicus Curiae,
assisting the Court on behalf of the accused-respondents while
opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
appellant-State, submitted that the prosecution has failed to
discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that
the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material
contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses while arriving at a just conclusion of
acquittal.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
4.1. It was further submitted that there was a pre-existing land
dispute between the complainant party and the accused party with
respect to the field in question. As per the revenue records, the
field belonged to the deceased and one Kojaram s/o Chogaram
and not the accused Kojaram s/o Hemaram, however, accused-
Kojaram has filed a case on 09.08.2001 i.e. much prior to the date
of incident (17.08.2002), seeking correction in the name of his
father Hemaram being mistakenly written as Chogaram in the
revenue records, and therefore, there was no dispute as to the
ownership of the land.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the place of incident,
marked as ‘X’ in the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P. 5) shows that the fight
took place on the land belonging to the accused-respondent
Kojaram, which further clarifies that the complainant party
attacked the accused-respondents peacefully engaged in
agricultural work in their own field, when the complainant party
unlawfully trespassed onto the land, armed with weapons, and
began attacking the accused without any provocation.
4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that owing to the immediate
danger to life and their property, the accused party acted in their
private defence. Furthermore, the material available on record
clearly shows that the altercation was initiated by the complainant
party and not the accused-respondents.
4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has
failed to explain the grave injuries sustained by the accused-
respondents as is evident from injury report of the accused-
respondents, i.e. Bhunda Ram (Ex.D.2), Siya Ram (Ex.D.3), Koja
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
Ram (Ex.D.4), Manchi Lal(Ex.D.7), Birju (Ex.D. 8), thereby lending
further credibility to the defence version that the complainant
party was the aggressor.
4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has
concealed the fact of a cross case filed against the complainant
party by the accused-respondents, which is pending, and thus, the
complainant party have attempted to falsely implicate the
accused-respondents in the criminal case in question.
4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimonies of
the eyewitnesses Devaram, Arjunram, and Bhagaram, materially
contradicted each other and thus, cannot be believed. Prosecution
witness Bhagaram (PW.23) stated that the deceased and Jairam
(complainant, PW.13) were already on the field around 8 a.m.
when the accused-respondents came and initiated the attack. On
the other hand, Jairam (complainant, PW.13) states of reaching
the land at around 9 a.m. after the accused-respondents
threatened them at their residence,and asked them to come to the
land, whereupon the altercation happened. Learned counsel
submitted that when there are multiple contradictions in the
testimonies of the eye-witnesses, and thus, the impugned
judgment of acquittal has rightly been passed by the learned Trial
Court, while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused-
respondents.
4.7. Learned counsel also submitted that Jairam (complainant,
PW.13) himself admitted of breaking the pattis built in the land as
a demarcation at an earlier occasion.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
4.7.1. Learned counsel also highlighted an important discrepancy
with regards to the written report (Ex.P. 15) filed by Jairam
(complainant, PW.13). The said written report (Ex.P. 15) reflects it
to be filed at 10:30 a.m., however, the injured witness and
complainant laid emphasis of him filing the same at around 1-1:30
p.m., which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution story.
4.8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is clear from the
medical evidence that the deceased sustained only one grievous
injury on the head, and that the death happened 2-3 hours after
the incident (which could have been prevented by providing
proper medical treatment), shows that the accused-respondents
did not have any intention/motive to kill the deceased, rather they
acted in private defence while using a reasonable force. Learned
counsel also submitted that there was no evidence of
premeditation or planning presented by the prosecution.
4.9. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has
failed to produce any independent witness in the present case,
and that all the witnesses are interested witnesses.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the incident in question has been
alleged to have occurred, when the accused-respondents were
cutting the extra grass in the fields, but the same was tried to be
obstructed by the complainant’s father, and that the accused-
respondents claimed that the said activity was being done by
them in their own field, and not the field of the complainant party;
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
after filing of the charge-sheet, the trial commenced, but after
conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the
accused-respondents, as above, vide the impugned judgment
dated 14.11.2003, against which the present challenge has been
laid by the appellant-State.
7. To begin with, this Court observes that the site inspection
report (Naksha Mauka, Ex.P-5) indicates that the incident occurred
on land shown to be under possession of the accused party. If this
is taken into account along with the fact that no independent or
disinterested witness was produced by the prosecution, the
version of the complainant party being the aggressors cannot be
ruled out and the same casts a serious doubt on the claim of
exclusive possession by the complainant party and supports the
argument that the land was at the very least under dispute.
8. This Court also finds that the prosecution’s narrative suffers
from material contradictions. The deposition of Bhagaram (PW-23)
that the complainant party was already present in the field at 8:00
a.m., when the accused arrived and attacked them, is in stark
contrast to the statement of Jairam (PW-13), who deposed that
the accused came to their house and called them to the land
around 9:00 a.m., after which the altercation ensued. Such
inconsistencies in the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses go to the
root of the prosecution’s case and materially affect its credibility.
9. This Court also observes that a critical aspect of the case is
that the prosecution has not been able to refute the fact put forth
on behalf of the accused-respondents that they have also
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
sustained injuries during the incident in question, as documented
in Ex.D-2 to Ex.D-8, which further shows that the prosecution has
also failed to substantially rebut the plea of the accused-
respondents that they have exercised right of private defence.
10. This Court further observes that the learned Amicus Curiae
has rightly highlighted the inconsistencies with respect to the FIR
(Ex.P-15), which is shown to have been registered at 10:30 a.m.,
whereas Jairam (PW-13) himself admits to filing the report at
around 1:00-1:30 p.m. This discrepancy raises doubt on the
spontaneity and authenticity of the FIR, rendering it unreliable.
11. This Court also observes that as for the medical evidence,
although the Postmortem Report (Ex.P-1) confirms a grievous
injury on the head of the deceased, it also records that the death
occurred 2-3 hours after the incident, however, the testimony of
the doctor, shows that the death could not be attributed to one
single injury caused by the accused-respondents. This, coupled
with the absence of any evidence showing premeditation or prior
planning, renders it unsafe to convict the accused under Section
302 IPC or any alternative common intention provision.
12. This Court further observes that the argument that the
accused were the aggressors stood diluted in light of the pending
cross case filed by the accused party. This cross-case lends
additional weight to the suggestion that the incident was not one-
sided but rather a mutual conflict arising out of a land dispute,
with each side sustaining injuries.
13. This Court is of the considered view that in circumstances
such as the present, judicial scrutiny must be guided by the
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
quality rather than the quantity of the testimonies adduced.
Where significant contradictions are apparent in the statements of
the alleged eye-witnesses, particularly concerning material
aspects required to establish the culpability of the accused-
respondents, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily enure to
the advantage of the accused-respondents.
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. 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;
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
(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. 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:
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
(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-respondents,
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 witnesses 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.
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
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22162-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLA-820/2004]
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.
18.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481
B.N.S.S., each of the accused-respondents are directed to furnish
a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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.
18.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
19. This Court is thankful to Ms. Anita Gehlot, who has rendered
her assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused-
respondents, in the present adjudication.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:19:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)