Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Ratna And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:33302-Db) on 29 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 553/2011
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ratna S/o Senga
2. Ishwar S/o Bechar,
3. Sunil S/o Bechar,
4. Ratna s/o Jeeva,
5. Deeta S/o Homa,
6. Anil S/o Amra,
All b/c Hota Meena, R/o Malmata, Nai Basti, PS Bicchiwada,
District Doongarpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. KS Kumpawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Mr. Rvainder KUmar
Ms. Rachita Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
29/07/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against
the judgment dated 30.08.2010, passed by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Doongarpur in Sessions
Case No.85/2009, 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 Amra Nanoma Meena gave a written report
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
at Police Station Bicchiwada to the effect that on 18.10.2009 at
about 7:00 AM, his elder son Subhash and his wife Nirma went to
Bichhiwada market and he along with his two sons Ramesh and
Jeeva went to Nakdi Mata Temple, where the accused respondents
were already present. They all were doing ‘Bhajan Kirtan’ in the
temple. Subsequently, at about 2:30 PM, complainant elder son
Subhash and his wife Niram also came to the temple, thereupon,
accused respondent No.1 Ratna S/o Senga told the other accused
persons that this person quarreled with his brother Ramesh on
yesterday and all the accused-persons with a common intention
assaulted Subhash with lathi. Due to blood loss and head injury,
Subhash became unconscious. On making hue and cry, Shanti Lal
and Manji came and rescue them. Subsequently, Subhash was
taken to hospital, where Doctor declared him dead.
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 Sections 147, 323,
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 302,
302/149, 323 IPC to the accused respondents. They denied the
charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twenty-two witnesses and also got exhibited relevant
documents in support of its case.
The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
against them during the course of trial to which they denied and
stated that they did not commit any offence. They were innocent
and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
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 30.08.2010 acquitted the accused-respondents
from offence under Sections 147, 302, 302/147, 323 IPC. Hence
this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the
accused-respondents.
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 from the
offence under Sections 147, 302, 302/147, 323 IPC. Counsel
further submits that eye-witness PW-2 Nirma in her statement
specifically deposed that accused Ratna S/o Senga inflicted lathi
blow on the head of deceased Subhash and also beaten the
complainant. Not only this, all the accused respondents
constituted an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common
intention inflicted injuries to Subhash, which resulted into his
death. The injuries caused by the accused-respondents were ante-
mortem in nature and the same were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Counsel further submits that the
evidence of PW-9 Shanti Lal and PW-2 Deeta Lal also corroborated
the entire incident. Counsel submits that the learned trial court
discarded the evidence of eye-witness. Counsel further submits
that that learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
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.
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. The learned trial
court has passed a detailed and reasoned order 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-22 Nirma is the eye-witness of the incident. She
deposed that she and her husband deceased Subhash went to
Nakti Mata temple at about 2:30 PM, where her father-in-law
Amra and two brother-in-law Ramesh and Jeeva were already
present and the accused-respondents were also present there.
She further stated that due to an old quarrel, accused-
respondents ran behind deceased Subhash. Accused Ratna S/o
Senga inflicted a lathi blow on the head of deceased Subhash and
other accused respondents also assaulted him. The accused-
respondents also beat her father-in-law Amra (Complainant).
Subsequently, deceased Subhash was taken to the hospital, where
Doctor declared him dead. She stated that her husband died due
to head injury. In her cross-examination, the said witness said
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
that at the time of incident, there were about 100-150 people and
when she reached at the temple, she fell down and became
unconscious and after 4-5 hours she came to sense.
Witness PW-21 Amra, the complainant and father of the
deceased Subhash stated that accused respondent Ratna S/o
Senga gave lathi blow on the head of deceased Subhash and other
accused respondents also gave beating to him. Witnesses PW-16
Jeeva and PW-6 Ramesh, who were brother of deceased Subhash,
gave the same statement as given by witness PW-21. Another
witness PW-1 Laxman deposed that Amra told him about the
death of Subhash due to injuries caused by the accused-
respondents.
The aforesaid witnesses are wife, father and brother of the
deceased Subhash. All these witnesses said that Subhash was
died due to injuries caused by the accused-respondents with
lathis, which were picked by them near the house of Bhagu. They
also said that at the time of incident, about 100-150 people were
present.
The trial court held that it is not accepted that about 100-
150 people were present at the place of incident and they did not
rush to the rescue of the deceased Subhash. It was further held
that incident was happened near the house of Bhagu. Bhagu was
examined as PW-20 and he said that he did not heard and see
anyone assaulting deceased Subhash.
PW-17 Dr. Kantilal, who alone prepared the postmortem
report, has stated in his statement that the cause of death is due
to blood clotting in brain. The said witness further said that there
is no fracture in brain bone and without fracture, there is no
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
chance of any injury to brain. He further said that due to high
blood pressure in the vain, blood coating was happened. He
further said that the death was caused due to injuries No.1 & 3,
but he did not mention that on which part of head, the injury No.1
was occurred and he never written that blood coating was on
injury No.1. He further did not mention that from which injuries,
death was caused.
The trial court after taking into consideration the oral
evidence of the aforesaid witnessed as well as documentary
medical evidence, came to the conclusion that there are
contradictions in the oral evidence of Dr. Kantilal and the medical
evidence.
So far as the recovery of lathi is concerned, at the time of
recovery lathi from accused Ratna, the motbir Kantilal was not
taken inside the house and he remained present outside the
house. The Investigating Officer said the lathi was not recovered
from an open place, whereas the recovery witnesses said that the
lathi was recovered from an open place. The another witness
Shantilal and Badamilal were declared hostile. The aforesaid facts
situation shows that the Investigating Officer did not follow the
proper procedure for recovery of lathi. Further, according to FSL
report, ‘A’ blood group was found, but the same did not match
with the blood found on the recovered lathi. Thus, it creates more
doubt about the recovery.
The learned trial court further held that deceased Subhash
fall while running and where he fell down, it was a rocky area and
there is a possibility that he sustained head injury due to falling on
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]
a rocky surface. Thus, the recovery about lathi is completely
doubtful.
So far as the injuries sustained by the complainant Amra are
concerned, according to his injury report as well as statement of
Dr. Kantilal, he sustained only three injuries of simple nature. The
witnesses said that Amra sustained injuries due to falling.
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
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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]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 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
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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33302-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-553/2011]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 for offence under Sections
147, 302/149, 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The
petitioner/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 order passed by the learned trial
court is detailed and reasoned order and the same does not
warrant any interference from this Court.
The impugned judgment is perfectly justified and the same
does not suffer from any perversity and infirmity.
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.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
76-MS/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:14:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)