Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Bhaga Ram And Ors. … on 5 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 315/2014 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus 1. Bhaga Ram S/o Babraji, 2. Jodha Ram S/o Kesa Ram, 3. Roopa Ram S/o Savaji, 4. Smt. Jumi W/o Hemaji, 5. Smt. Ramu W/o Late Kesaji, All the accused respondent, by caste Devasi, R/o Venpura, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Naman Bhansali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
05/08/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 05.07.2013, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge Sumerpur, District Pali, in Sessions Case
No.114/2010, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondents from the offences punishable under Sections
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that complainant Thanaram (PW/3) gave a written report at
Police Station Sanderav Camp Venpura, District Pali to the effect
(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]
that on 02.01.2009 at about 8:00 AM, his brother Magaram went
to the field for fencing and the complainant to work at NAREGA.
While his brother Magaram was doing the work of fencing in his
field then accused Bhagaram, Jodharam and Rooparam came with
sharp edged weapon and Lathis and assaulted his brother-
Magaram. Upon seeing the said incident, complainant alongwith
his brother Manaram reached at their field. In the said incident,
his brother Magaram succumbed to injuries.
On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the case
against the accused-respondents and started investigation. On
completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the
accused respondents for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 302/149,
148 IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the charge and
sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as nineteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents
in support of its case.
The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and in defence, certain documents were exhibited.
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 05.07.2013 acquitted the accused-respondents
from offence under Sections 302/149 & 148 IPC. Hence this
appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-
respondents.
(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]
This Court vide order dated 18.04.2014 dismissed the appeal
to the extent of respondent No.4-Smt. Jumi and No.5-Smt. Ramu.
Hence, the present appeal to be pending exclusively concerning
the accused-respondents No.1 to 3.
Learned AAG has vehemently submitted that the learned trial
court has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses in
right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious
error of law in acquitting the accused-respondents No.1 to 3 from
the offence under Sections 302/149, 148 IPC. Counsel further
submits that two eye-witnesses viz., Thanaram (PW-3) and
Manaram (PW-4) saw the incident but the learned trial Court
acquitted the accused respondents due to minor contradictions in
their statements while observing that both the eye witnesses
could not see the incident from the distance of about 200-250
pavanda away. Counsel further submits that the finding given by
the learned trial court while acquitting the accused respondents
that the accused Bhagaram also received injuries, indicates that if,
Bhagaram indeed sustained injuries in this incidence, then the
prosecution has suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence is
not seems judicious one because the accused received only minor
injuries. Counsel submits that the learned trial court discarded the
evidence of eye-witness. Counsel further submits that learned trial
court while passing the impugned judgment has neither
appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in its right
perspective, 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.
(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]
Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that
the learned trial court has considered each and every aspect of
the matter while passing the order of acquittal. Counsel for the
respondent also submits that compromise has also arrived at
between the parties and both the parties resided peacefully. The
learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned judgment
of acquittal after proper appreciation of evidence available before
it, which requires no interfere from this Court.
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.
Having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
we note that PW-3 Thanaram mentioned that all the accused came
to their field and assaulted his brother. He further mentioned that
two persons gave axe blow to his deceased brother. He further
mentioned that he saw the incident about 200-250 pavanda away.
Witness PW-4 Manaram, eye witness of the incident,
mentioned that all the accused persons gave beating to the
deceased, whereas in his cross-examination he mentioned that he
also saw the incident about 200-250 pavanda away and there
were major contradictions in his statement.
Witnesses PW-5-Chhogaram, PW-10 Pokar Ram and PW-12-
Moolaram turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
PW-7-Mohabbat Singh was hearsay witness.
On perusal of the statements of these witnesses, clearly
shows that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile and
did not support he prosecution case. Only related witness i.e.
brother of the deceased, who claimed to be eye witness to the
(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]
incident, mentioned in their statements that they saw the incident
from 200-250 pavanda away. The injuries received by accused
Bhagaram shows that some quarrel took place between the
deceased and accused and firstly the deceased might have caused
injuries to Bhagaram and in defence, all the accused gave beating
to the deceased. So the true genesis of the occurrence has been
suppressed by the prosecution and other material witnesses. The
recovery of weapons were not connecting with the story of eye
witnesses.
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 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(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]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”. …”
Similarly in the case of State 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(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34472-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-315/2014]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.”
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 No.1 to 3 for offence under
Sections 302/149, 148 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The
appellant/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 perfectly justified and the
same does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
With these observations, the present criminal appeal has no
substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
24-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 07/08/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)