Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Luna Ram And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:24757-Db) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 563/1994
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Luna Ram And Anr
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik with
Ms. Pragya Chouhan
Mr. V.K. Bhadu with
Mr. Vikas Vishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
(per Hon’ble Beniwal,J.)
20/05/2025
1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal assailing the
judgment and order dated 05.04.1994, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case
No.17/1994, vide which, the learned trial Court has acquitted the
accused-respondents under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34,
324, 324/34, 323, 323/34 and 449 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Chandu Ram, who
was admitted in the hospital gave parcha bayan alleging inter-alia
that there was enmity between his father and accused-respondent
No.1 Luna Ram. On 01.06.1993, when he was at Raisinghnagar
with his mother Kesri Devi and brother Birbal Ram, at about 10.00
p.m. in the night, upon hearing some noise, he and his mother
came out, then they saw that accused-respondent No.2 Bhura
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
Ram having jaffa in his hand and accused-respondent No.1 Luna
Ram having kassi in his hand, entered in their house and started
inflicting blows on his brother Birbal Ram, who was sleeping in
other portion of their house. When he and his mother intervened
in between, they were also beaten. Upon their raising hue and cry,
his uncle Adaram reached there and, therefore, the accused-
respondents fled away.
2.1 On the basis of the aforesaid parcha bayan, the police
registered FIR No. 194/1993 at Police Station Raisinghnagar, for
the offences under Sections 452, 323, and 34 of the IPC, and the
investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation,
one of the injured, Smt. Kesari Devi, succumbed to her injuries.
2.2 Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet for offences
under Sections 302, 397, 324, and 323 read with Section 34 of
the IPC. The learned trial court framed charges under Sections
302, 307, 324, 323, and 449 read with Section 34 of the IPC to
which the accused-respondents denied and claimed to be tried.
2.3 During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13
witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The accused-respondents,
in their defence, exhibited 5 documents. Thereafter, the accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
2.4 After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned
trial court, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.1994, acquitted
the accused-respondents of all the charges leveled against them.
Hence, the appellant-State has preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the
learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in
correct perspective. The learned trial Court has recorded the
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
finding that there are material contradictions in the statements of
the eye-witnesses of the incident but there are no such
contradictions, on the basis of which, prosecution case cannot be
disbelieved.
3.1 Furthermore, the learned trial Court has also failed to
consider the material fact that in the heat of scuffle and getting
three injuries the witnesses could not locate which of the accused
were responsible for rest of the injuries except the three injuries
which were attributed to Bhura Ram and thus, the testimonies of
the injured eye-witnesses cannot be falsified.
3.2 The learned trial Court has also committed error in not
considering the fact that the deceased Kesri Devi died due to
septicemia, which could be due to the injuries caused by the
accused-respondents. The learned counsel for the State read the
statements of injured witnesses Chandu Ram (PW-3) and Birbal
Ram (PW-4), eyewitnesses Phula Ram (PW-6) and Mega Ram
(PW-5), Exhibits P/4, P/5, and P/6, as well as the medical reports
of the injured witnesses, and argued that in view of their version,
duly supported by the medical reports, clearly show that there
was a serious altercation between the complainant party and the
accused persons at the time of the incident. This further
establishes the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene. Despite
the direct and consistent statements, the learned trial court
committed an error in acquitting the accused-respondents.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents
submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has
rightly noted material contradictions in the statements of the eye-
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
witnesses with regard to attribution of injuries; place of incident
etc. Further, the doctor who operated the deceased, has clearly
stated that the injuries caused to her were not so grievous to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the learned
trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents. He made
the following submissions:-
(i) Delay in recording statements of Megha Ram (PW-5);
(ii) Serious contradictions in the statements of PW-3 and PW-4;
(iii) Place of incident as narrated in prosecution story is doubtful;
(iv) Presence of Megha Ram and other persons were not shown
in the FIR but well introduced later is nothing but an
afterthought; and
(v) Para No.22 of the impugned judgment and order indicates
the reason why injuries were disbelieved.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
6. From the narration of facts, following questions arose for
consideration of this Court:-
(i) Whether there are material contradictions in the
statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to place of
incident; attribution of injuries etc.?
(ii) Whether the medical evidence is not enough to prove
the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt?
7. For the purpose of appreciating the aforesaid issues, it is
relevant to consider the statements of the eye-witnesses and to
consider the medical evidence.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
8. As per the prosecution’s case, the first informant, Chandu
Ram, who is an eyewitness to the incident that occurred on
01.06.1993, sustained injuries during the incident, which
ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased, Kesri Devi. He
was examined as PW-3 before the learned trial court. According to
his testimony, Luna Ram was armed with a kasiya and Bhura Ram
was holding a jaffa. It was stated that Bhura Ram inflicted injuries
on his mother, Kesri Devi, using the jaffa, delivering two blows to
her abdomen and one to her thigh. Chandu Ram further stated
that on hearing hue and cry from Birbal Ram, he and his mother
Kesri Devi went outside the house where Birbal Ram was sleeping.
8.1 It was further stated that Birbal Ram (PW-4) was also
present at the time of the incident. Subsequently, Uda Ram, Tola
Ram, and Taju Ram arrived at the scene and witnessed the
incident. After the incident, Uda Ram, Tola Ram, and Taju Ram
took Chandu Ram, his mother Kesri Devi, and his brother Birbal
Ram to the Government Hospital at Raisinghnagar.
8.2 In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that their
house did not have a main door. He also stated that he was
unaware of how his mother fell down, as it was completely dark at
the time. He further mentioned that the entire incident occurred
within a minute, after which the accused fled the scene. He
reiterated in his cross-examination that there was complete
darkness at the time of the incident, to the extent that “one could
not see even hand to hand.” He added that it was only at the
hospital that they could clearly see the injuries which were
inflicted by the accused to him, his brother Birbal Ram, and their
mother Kesri Devi.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
9. Birbal Ram (PW-4), who is also an injured eyewitness,
generally reiterated the version provided by Chandu Ram (PW-3).
However, there are significant contradictions between their
statements. In his examination-in-chief, Birbal Ram (PW-4) stated
that the injuries were inflicted on his mother and brother while
they were standing. But, Chandu Ram (PW-3) testified that after
Birbal Ram was injured, their mother, Kesri Devi, attempted to
protect him by falling over him, and it was at that point that Bhura
Ram inflicted injuries on her.
9.1 Another notable contradiction is that while Birbal Ram
initially claimed that his mother was injured while standing, in his
cross-examination, he stated that Kesri Devi received injuries
while she was sleeping on a cot and remained there even after
being injured. Furthermore, Birbal Ram mentioned the presence of
Megha Ram at the time of the incident. However, Megha Ram’s
presence is questionable, as Chandu Ram, the first informant and
an eyewitness, did not mention Megha Ram’s name in the FIR.
9.2 In cross-examination, Birbal Ram stated that after the
incident, he remained at the spot only and later their neighbours
came. Whereas, Chandu Ram stated that no neighbour reached at
the spot.
10. As noted, the prosecution also produced Megha Ram (PW-5)
as an eyewitness. In his examination-in-chief, he stated the
following:
(i) He was not aware of the reason why Bhura Ram and Luna
Ram assaulted them;
(ii) He, along with his mother and brother Chandu Ram, ran
outside the house upon hearing the cries of Birbal Ram; and
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
(iii) Bhura Ram attacked the deceased, Kesri Devi, and inflicted
injuries on her abdomen and thigh with a jaffa.
10.1 In cross-examination, this witness stated the following:
(i) Luna Ram inflicted injuries on his mother;
(ii) Bhura Ram was in front of him and Luna Ram was behind
him;
(iii) He later corrected himself, stating that Luna Ram was in
front of him, not Bhura Ram;
(iv) He sustained a head injury caused by a kasiya, inflicted by
Luna Ram; and
(v) It was completely dark and the weather was windy at the
time.
10.2 The testimony of this eyewitness is highly questionable, as
he admitted that it was completely dark at the time of the
incident. Furthermore, there is a contradiction between his
examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding who
inflicted the blow on his mother–whether it was Bhura Ram or
Luna Ram. According to him, the deceased, Kesri Devi, was
assaulted by the accused Luna Ram. However, Chandu Ram, who
is also an injured eyewitness, deposed that when Birbal Ram was
being assaulted, their mother Kesri Devi (the deceased) tried to
protect him by throwing herself over him, during which Bhura Ram
inflicted injuries on her.
10.3 In addition to the above, several other witnesses gave
contradictory statements:
➢ Phula Ram (PW-6) stated that Birbal Ram came to his house
and informed him about the incident. He then went to the scene,
where he saw the accused beating Kesri Devi, Chandu Ram, and
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]Megha Ram. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that
Megha Ram was not present at the time of the incident.
➢ Asha Ram (PW-10) stated that when he visited the hospital,
his wife, Kesri Devi, told him that Megha Ram had been struck on
the head with a kasiya. However, Phula Ram (PW-6), in his cross-
examination, again stated that Megha Ram was not present at the
scene.
➢ Mahendra Singh (PW-13) deposed that he wrote a letter to
the doctor asking whether Kesri Devi was in a condition to give a
statement. The doctor responded that she was not. Despite this,
Mahendra Singh claimed that he went to the hospital and recorded
her statement.
➢ Thus, a perusal of the above, clearly shows that there are
material contradictions in the statements of the material
witnesses.
11. Upon perusal of the record, certain facts indicate that the
prosecution has failed to establish the offences alleged against the
accused-respondents beyond a reasonable doubt, as outlined
below:
(i) The statements of Megha Ram, Phula Ram, and Asha Ram–
who are stated to be eyewitnesses–were recorded on 23.06.1993,
i.e., after a delay of approximately 22 days, despite their presence
at the time the panchnama was prepared;
(ii) The incident occurred on 01.06.1993 at around 10:00 p.m.,
and according to the statements of Chandu Ram and Birbal Ram,
there was complete darkness at the time;
(iii) The place of the incident, as per the panchnama, was a
public area, whereas as per the version provided by Chandu Ram
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
and Birbal Ram regarding the location, it is inside the house and
therefore, their version is not found to be trustworthy;
(iv) All the eyewitnesses,namely Chandu Ram (PW-3), Birbal
Ram (PW-4), Megha Ram (PW-5), Phula Ram (PW-6), and Asha
Ram (PW-10) are closely related, and hence, their testimonies
cannot be solely relied upon, especially in light of the serious
contradictions present in their statements; and
(v) As per the prosecution, the incident took place at two
locations; however, Birbal Ram (PW-4) stated that the incident
occurred at the place where his mother and Chandu Ram were
sleeping.
(vi) There are contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses
regarding who went to call Phula Ram. Birbal Ram stated that he
remained at the spot and Chandu Ram stated that no neighbour
reached at the sport, thus, it creates doubt about Phula Ram’s
presence.
12. A close scrutiny of the medical evidence suggests that the
cause of death of Kesri Devi cannot be conclusively attributed to
the injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused-respondents.
Although it is stated that Kesri Devi was admitted to hospitals at
Raisinghnagar and Sriganganagar, the relevant bed-head ticket
has not been produced on record. Furthermore, the doctor who
operated on Kesri Devi was not examined as a witness. The
medical report does not specify the weapon used in causing the
injuries, rendering it inconclusive regarding the actual cause of
death. In fact, there is a disconnect between the medical evidence
and the oral testimonies concerning the injuries sustained by the
injured witnesses. The post-mortem report notes that Injury No. 8
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
was the fatal injury, but there is no evidence establishing who
inflicted that particular injury. Although three injuries were
attributed to accused-respondent Bhura Ram, there is no
explanation as to who caused the remaining injuries.
12.1 Dr. Prem Narain Mathur (PW-2) stated that when the medical
board examined the body of the deceased, Kesri Devi, it was
noted that she had suffered from septicemia. He also stated that it
is difficult to determine when she developed septicemia, and that
even a minor injury could cause it. Additionally, it was noted that
the deceased was not treated in accordance with the bed-head
ticket.
12.2 Thus, it is clear that the medical evidence is not conclusive.
There was no explanation regarding the injury allegedly caused by
Bhura Ram using a jaffa, which has sharp edges. No findings were
given for the remaining two injuries. Similarly, the opinion
regarding the injury to the pancreas is also inconclusive.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond a
reasonable doubt. There is no certainty regarding the exact place
of the incident, the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased Kesri
Devi, the contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses, the
delay in recording the statements of Megha Ram and Phula Ram,
and the actual cause of death. Under these circumstances, the
learned trial court was justified in disbelieving the prosecution’s
case and, consequently, acquitting the accused-respondents of the
offences alleged against them.
14. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka : (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal
Appeal No.985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as under:-
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 Rudragoundar 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
Cr.P.C. 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 re-appreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]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.”
15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-
respondents under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34, 324,
324/34, 323, 323/34 and 449 of IPC, 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.
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24757-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLA-563/1994]
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
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.
19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the
accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.25,000/- each and a surety bond 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-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called
upon to do so.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
2-skm/-
(Downloaded on 30/05/2025 at 10:15:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)