State vs Bhaga Ram And Ors. … on 5 August, 2025

0
2


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

302/149 & 148 IPC.

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)
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here