[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Ugma And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:34624-Db) on 5 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 687/2012
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ugma S/o. Nanda Gurjar.
2. Sanwarlal S/o. Teju Gurjar.
3. Jeevraj S/o. Teji Gurjar.
4. Sanwarlal S/o. Sukhdev Lohar.
5. Smt. Laxmi D/o. Ramkunwar Gurjar.
All residents of Kaaniya, Police Station Gulabpura, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati for
Mr. Ramesh Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
Reportable
Per Hon’ble Mr. Ravi Chirania, J.
05/08/2025
1. The appellant-State filed an application for leave to appeal
before this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 12.07.2012, leave was
granted and accordingly, the present regular appeal was
registered. In the instant appeal, the appellant-State, through the
Public Prosecutor, has challenged the impugned judgment dated
30.11.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara Mr. V.K. Arya, RHJS in Sessions
Case No. 62/2010, by which all five accused persons were
acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt against all of them.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (2 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
2. The present appeal has been filed by the State solely on two
grounds numbered (iii) and (iv), as mentioned in the appeal.
3. The two grounds of appeal are quoted below for ready
reference:
“iii) That eye witnesses Sonu, Pw-23 has
clearly stated that deceased was beaten-up
severely by the accused respondent and it
was on account of these beatings the
deceased passed away. No reasons have been
given by the learned trial court for
disbelieving this natural and trustworthy
evidence. As no rebuttal has been offered
from the defence side so as to disbelieve the
version of this natural witness. The evidence
of this witness has been corroborated from
the evidence of PW-24 Rampali.
iv) That the learned trial court has also
committed a serious error of law and facts in
not considering that a motive was available
with the accused respondents in as much as
they were operating under superstitious that
the deceased was playing some evil magic
under a sort of third power and according to
the accused respondent it was the conduct of
deceased which led the destruction in their
family and for superstitious they had beaten-
up the deceased to death, thus the learned
trial court wrongly held that there was no
motive available with the accused
respondents.”
4. The above-mentioned grounds show that the State has filed
the appeal on the ground that the statement of eyewitness Sonu
PW-23, was not properly considered despite her statement being
corroborated by the evidence of PW-24 Rampali also. The State
further stated in ground (iv) that a motive was indeed available
with the accused persons, but the learned Trial Court failed to
consider the same and wrongly recorded that no motive was
available with the accused-respondents.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (3 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
5. As mentioned above, the present appeal is against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be followed
while interfering with a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court.
6. In the case of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
(2024 INSC 104) decided on 12.02.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, has held as under:
“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.”
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in the case of Babu
SahebaGouda RudraGoudar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
(2024 INSC 320) in Criminal Appeal No.985 of 2010 decided on
19.4.2024 held as under :-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (4 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
“38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka2 this Court
summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr PC 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; and8.5. 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.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would
have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. ”
8. The judgment passed in the case of Babu SahebaGouda
RudraGoudar (supra) was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State
of Uttarakhand reported in 2025(5) Supreme Court Cases 433.
The relevant para of the judgment passed in Constable 907
Surendra Singh (supra) is as under :-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (5 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
“23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of
Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.)
had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference
in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court
governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the
State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position
covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below :
(SCC pp.482-83, para 29)
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the
following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words :
(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :
’42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such 12 power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its
own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and
sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an
appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to 13 come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the 14 evidence on record,
the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'”
9. Similarly in a recent judgment passed in the case of State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta, reported in (2025) 2
SCC (Cri) 159, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under :-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (6 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
“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 Constable 907 Surender Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand4, 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 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.”
10. A perusal of the above judgments, as passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, and other similar judgments from time to time,
shows that the Appellate Court, while interfering with a judgment
of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, must follow the principles
laid down in the above-mentioned judgments.
11. Considering the principles as laid down in the above
judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we now advert to the
facts as noted from the record of the case placed before us and as
argued by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh
Rajpurohit, which are as under:
(i) According to learned Public Prosecutor, PW-9 Devraj (son
of the deceased-Prem Devi) informed the incident to the
Police on 24.9.2010. The report is stated to have been
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (7 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]recorded by some other person as no hand-written/ typed
report was given by PW-9 Devraj as per the record. The
report, Exhibit-P/16, reads as follows :-
lsok esa]
Jheku Fkkuknkj lk-
iwfyl Fkkuk xqykciwjk
fo’k;%& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcr~
egksn; th
fuosnu gSa fd esjk ufugky esa dkf.k;ka esa esjh ekrk izse nsoh o ekslh jkeikyh
ds uke ij tehu o edku o ckM+k gS bl ckM+k ij gekjk dCtk vk jgk gS esjh eka os
esa gekjs xkao ukgjx<+ jgrsa gSa dkf.k;k esa tehu dks tksrus cksgus vkrs gSa djhc nks
lky ls gekjs ckM+s dks [kjhnus ds fy, mxek firk uUnk xqtZj fuoklh dkf.k;k nks
rhu ckj gekjs ?kj ij ukgjx<+ vk;k Fkk exj esjh eka us o esus euk dj fn;kA bl
ckr ls gekjs ls mxek iq= uUnk ukjkt py jgk gSa dy fnukad 23@09@2010 dks
esjh ekrk izse nsoh gekjh Qly o tehu dks lEHkkyusa ds fy, dkf.k;k xbZ Fkh vkt
fnukad 24@09@2010 dks lwcg djhc vkB cts jke/ku firk uUnknkl fuoklh
ukgjx<+ us ew>s crk;k dh dqfu;k ls Qksu vk;k gS rsjh eka cgwr chekj gS bl ij esa
vkSj esjs HkkbZ dkf.k;k x,s rc esa esjh ekslh jkeikyh ds ?kj x,sa rc irk pyk dh esjh
eka ej pqdh gS ogh ij ew>s xkao ds nyirflag o nsosUnz flag firk “kEHkw flag feys o
esjh eklh o mldh cPph jksrh gqbZ fefy esus iwNk ;g gknlk dsls gwvk rks esjh eklh
o mldh c..kh lksuw us crk;k rFkk dkf.k;k xkao ds gh nyir flag o nsosUnz flag us
crk;k dh izse dks mlds uksgjs ¼ckM+½ ds ikl gh tkrh gwbZ dks jksd dj y{eh iw=h
jkedqvkj xqtZj] egkohj iq= jkedqvkj xqtZj lkoj iq= rstq xqtZj lkoj iq= lq[knso
ywgkj mxek firk uUnk xqtZj thojkt us ;g dgrs gq,s ykfB;ksa ls fiBk dh rw tknw
Vksuk tUrj eU= rU= fo/;k djds gekjs ifjokj dks [kk xbZ ftlls y{eh dks Hkko
vkrk gS vkSj lHkh us ,d jk; gksdj ykBh;ksa ls ihV ihV dj esjh eka dh gR;k dj
nh geus gekjk ckM+k mxek o jke dqvkj o nq?kk xqtZj dks ugh cspus dh jthl ls
esjh ek dh gR;k dj nh fjiksVZ djrk gwa dk;Zokgh dh tk; ;g ?kVuk jke 8 cts dh
gSaA
izkFkhZ(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (8 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
12. On the basis of the above report, Police registered FIR
No.237/2010 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC
and Section 3(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed charge-
sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under
Sections 147, 149, 302 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13. The learned trial court framed charges on 22.2.2011. The
accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. The
prosecution produced 27 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jaidev Gurjar,
PW-2 Ugma Ram Gurjar, PW-3 Mangi Daroga, PW-4 Baluram, PW-
5 Pradeep Kumar, PW-6 Jagdish Dholi, PW-7 Devendra Singh, PW-
8 Dalpat Singh, PW-9 Devraj, PW-10 Bhagirath Meena, PW-11
Govind Singh, PW-12 Bhopat Singh, PW-13 Balu Singh, PW-14
Gopal Singh, PW-15 Banshi Lal, PW-15 Netram Choudhary, PW-17
Satpal Choudhary, PW-18 Mahaveer Prasad, PW-19 Sanjay
Cheepa, PW-20 Ramdhan Vaishnav, PW-21 Rajendra Kumar, PW-
22 Santosh Singh, PW-23 Soni, PW-24 Rampali, PW-25 Ramdhan
Keer, PW-26 Chandra Prakash and PW-27 Nehal Singh. The
prosecution also produced thirty seven documents i.e. izn”kZ ih&1
QnZ uD”kk cjkenxh LFky eqyfte lkaojyky iq= rstw xqtZj] izn”kZ ih&2 QnZ
cjkenxh ykBh }kjk eqyfte lkaojyky iq= rstw xqtZj] izn”kZ ih&3 QnZ uD”kk
cjkenxh LFky }kdfjk eqyfte thojkt] iz- ih&4 QnZ cjkenxh ydM+h }kjk eqyfte
thojkt] iz- ih&5 QnZ uD”kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFky }kjk eqyfte lkaojyky iq=
lq[knso xqtZj] iz- ih&6 QnZ cjkenxh ykBh }kjk eqyfte lkaojyky iq= lq[knso
xqtZj] iz- ih&7 c;ku 161 o n-iz-la- Jherh ekaxhnsoh] izn”kZ ih&8 yxk;r izn”kZ
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (9 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
ih&12 QnZ fxj¶rkfj;k vfHk;qDrx.k] iz- ih&13 c;ku 161 n-iz-la- nsosUnz flag] iz-
ih&14 QnZ uD”kk ekSdk ?kVukLFky] iz- ih&15 c;ku 161 n-iz-la- nyir flag] izn”kZ
ih&16 fyf[kr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] iz- ih&17 QnZ iapk;rukek o lwjr gky yk”k
e`rdk izse] iz-ih&18 QnZ lqiqnZxh yk”k e`rdk izzse] iz- ih&19 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ] iz-
ih&20 QnZ uD”kk ekSdk] iz- ih&21 QnZ tIrh ydM+h }kjk eqyfte mxek] iz- ih&22
QnZ uD”kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFky }kjk eqyfte mxek] izn”kZ ih&23 yxk;r izn”kZ
ih&29 e`rdk izse dh yk”k ds jaxhu QksVksxzkQ] izn”kZ ih&30 c;ku 161 n-iz-la-
jke/ku] iz- ih&31 pSd ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-] izn”kZ ih&32 udy eky[kkuk jftLVj] izn”kZ
ih&33 yxk;r izn”kZ ih&35 QnZ lwpuk /kkjk 27 lk{; vf/kfu;e }kjk ewyfteku
Øe”k% mxek] lkaojyky iq= lq[knso o lkaojyky iq= rstw] iz- ih&36 nsojkt dk
tkfr izek.k izfr dh izfr] iz- ih&36 QnZ lwpuk /kkjk 27 lk{; vf/kfu;e }kjk
eqyfte thojkt dks iznf”kZr djok;k x;kA In defence no document or
witness was produced by the accused persons. The statement of
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., by the
trial court.
14. The learned Trial Court after examining the eye-witnesses
i.e. PW-23 Kumari Soni, PW-24 Rampali, PW-7 Devendra Singh
and PW-8 Dalpat Singh apart from PW-27 Nihal Singh
(Investigating Officer) and the other relevant important witnesses
and documents noted serious contradictions in the story of the
prosecution and by a reasoned and detailed judgment passed the
judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2011.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit
majorly referred to the statements made by PW-23 and PW-24.
The statement of PW-23 Kumari Sonu, an eye-witness, as per the
prosecution, is reproduced hereunder :-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (10 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
“ihMCY;w 23 lksuw vius eq[; ijh{k.k fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd ds c;ku esa dgk gS fd
vkt ls djhc ,d lky igys dh ckr gSA eSa ?kj ij Fkh vkSj esjh ekSlh izse Hkh ?kj
ij FkhA eS o esjh ekSlh nksuksa “kDdj o pk; dh irh ysus ?kj ds ckgj x;s Fks fQj
lkeus ls mxek gkFk esa ydM+h ysdj vk;k vkSj izse nsoh dks ydfM+;ksa ls ekjus yx
x;k fQj esjh ekSlh nsohflag th ds ?kj Hkkx xbZ Fkh fQj ogka ij thojkt] y{eh]
lkojka] egkohj] lkaojk vk;s vkSj ;s vkdj Hkh esjh ekSlh ds lkFk ekjihV djus yx
x;sA y{eh us esjh ekSlh dks uhps iVd fn;k FkkA esjh ekSlh ds lkFk ydM+h] iRFkj o
pSu ls ekjihV dh Fkh] eqfYtekuksa us dh Fkh fQj eqfYteku ekjihV djds pys x;s
FksA esjh ekSlh ogh ij “kkar ¼e`R;q½ gks xbZ Fkh fQj nwljs fnu esjs ekek] nsojk vkSj
txnh”k vk x;s Fks] fQj mUgsa lkjh ckr crk nh FkhA eSa gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku ds
uke o “kDy ls tkurh gwa] bUgha us esjh ekSlh ds lkFk ekjihV dh FkhA
ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk eqfYteku %&
;g lgh gS fd dkfu;k esjk ufugky gSA esjk xkao vaVkyh gSA esjs ikik us
vaVkyh dh tehu csp nh FkhA firkth t;iqj jgrs gSA ge Hkh ogha t;iqj jgrs gSA
dkfu;k esa Hkh gekjs dksbZ ukuk ekek ugha gS] dHkh dHkkj ogka vk tkrs gSaA esjh ekSlh
dk xkao ukgjx<+ gSA tks llqjky gSA ukgjx<+ vkSj dkfu;k ds chp ikap dksl dh
nwjh gSA ;g xyr gS fd gekjs xkao o dkfu;k ds chp 8 dksl dh nwjh gks cfYd
FkksM+h T;knk gSA
ckr jkr ds 8 cts dh gSA nyir flag th us esjs ?kj ij vkdj lkjh ckr
crkbZ FkhA nsosUnzflag th ?kj ij ugha vk;s FksA nsosUnz flag us xqykciqjk Fkkus esa vkdj
ds lkjh ?kVuk crkbZ FkhAs
;g xyr gS fd nyir flag th us nsojkt dks esjs lkeus lkjh ckr crkbZ gksA
dkfu;k xkao djhc 400&500 ?kjksa ls T;knk dh cLrh gSA ogka ij lHkh tkfr ds yksx
jgrs gSaA lHkh xkoa okyksa dks eSa ugha tkurh gwaA iM+ksfl;ksa ds uke eSa tkurh gwaA ekSlh
dk ?kj xkao esa ckgj dh rjQ ckMs esa gSA ukgjx<+ ds jke /ku nkl dks eSa ugha
tkurh gwaA esjh ekSlh dks nyir flag th ysdj ugha vk;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd
ukgjx<+ ls dkfu;k xkao dks tkus ds fy;s xkao ds ckgj&ckgj jkLrk gSa gekjs ekekth
lqcg vk;s FksA lqcg vkus ij mUgasa vkus ij tkudkjh gqbZ fd ekSlh dh e`R;q gks xbZ
gSA
;g xyr gS fd ml fnu jkr dks 8&9 cts jkr dks lks x;s gksA ml jkst
lkjh jkr esa tkxrk jgh FkhA esjh ekSlh ds vykok esjs nks ekSlh gSA esjh ek oxsjk rhu
cgus gSa] nks thfor gSa o ,d ej pqdh gSA ”
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (11 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
16. A perusal of the statement of PW-23 Sonu Kumari shows that
she stated that the accused persons came to their house and
caused injury to her aunt i.e. the deceased. She further stated
that the incidence is of 8 pm. Most importantly she stated that
Dalpat Singh PW-8 informed him about the incident. She further
states that the body of her aunt was not brought by Dalpat Singh.
17. According to the prosecution PW-24 Rampali, the real sister
of the deceased-Prem Devi, has also supported the version of
PW-23 Sonu Kumari. The statement of PW-24 Rampali is as
under :-
“eS vkSj esjh cPph lksuw lkFk gh jgrs gS] vkSj ?kj ij gh FksA nyir flag th us eq>s
vkSj esjh iq=h lksuw dks dgk fd rqEgkjh cgu efnaj ds ihNsz iM+h gS] tkdj ds mls ys
vkvksA ;g ckr jkr ds 9&10 cts dh gSA nsosUnz flag us nwljs fnu ?kVuk ds ckjs ges
vkdj ds crk;k FkkA ml fnu jkr dks 9&10 cts [kkuk [kkdj lks x;s gks rks ;g
dguk xyr gSA efnaj ds ihNs lk/kqvks ¼oS’.koksa½ dk eksgYyk gSA
18. A perusal of the statement of PW-24, who is said to have
supported the version of PW-23 as per learned Public Prosecutor
stated in her statement that the incident was informed to her by
Dalpat Singh PW-8 and further Dalpat Singh informed that body of
her sister is lying behind the temple and advised them to go and
bring the body.
19. According to learned Public Prosecutor PW-23 Kumari Sonu
being an eye-witness stated names of the accused persons who
caused injuries, on account of which, the deceased died. The
above-quoted statements of PW-23 and PW-24 shows that the
incident did not occur in their house, rather it was not not even in
their presence. Both the witnesses were informed about the
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (12 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
incident by PW-8 Dalpat Singh with the specific information that
body of the deceased is lying behind temple. The statements
leave no doubt about the fact that they are not the eye-witnesses
of the incident.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused persons
supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and
stated that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error
while passing the judgment of acquittal on the ground that there
are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution and
further there was no motive with the accused persons to commit
the alleged crime.
21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, we shall now examine the judgment passed by the learned
Trial Court strictly within the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgments, as mentioned above in para 5
to 8 of this judgment.
22. The case was registered on the oral report para-5 to 8 of
PW-9 Devraj (son of the deceased) who informed the police,
without being on the spot, that he was informed by Dalpat Singh
and Devendra Singh that accused persons stopped her mother
when she was going towards Nohra and caused injuries by ‘lathis’
on the alleged superstitious thought that the deceased is using
evil magic on their family, which was causing destruction in the
family. According to the report, the incident happened on
23.09.2010 at around 08.00 p.m, however, the FIR came to be
lodged on the next date i.e. 24.09.2010 at around 11.00 a.m.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (13 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
The two eye-witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8, as per the prosecution
who first informed about the incident to the complainant PW-9
Devraj about the said incident, turned hostile and did not support
the story of the prosecution. The two informers i.e. PW-7 & PW-8
dismantled the complete foundation on which the story of
prosecution is based.
23. We have considered the statement of PW-7 Devendra Singh,
though declared hostile by the prosecution, who stated in his
statement as under:
“nyir flag esjk cM+k HkkbZ gSA ge dkf.k;k xkao esa gh jgrs gSaA gekjs [ksr gSA eS
izsensoh <ksyh dks tkurk FkkA eS eqyfteku es ls fdlh dks ugha tkurkA eS dkfu;k
xkao esa gh iSnk gqvk gq¡A ;g xyr gS fd izsensoh dks eqyfteku dgk¡ ysdj x;s] eq>s
irk gksA eq>s irk ugha gSA Hkaojflag jktiqr dk edku gekjs xkao esa jkLrs esa ugha
gSA ;g lgh gS fd gekjs [ksr ls xkoa esa vkrs gS rks Hkaojflag dk edku vkrk gSA
Åij tks ckr dgh gS og eSus jktiqr ugha dgk gS] Hkaojflag njksxk dk edku gSA ;g
eq>s irk ugha gS fd muds ?kj ds ckgj fctyh dk [kaHkk gks] xkao esa ykbZVsa gh ugha
gSA ;g eq>s irk ugha gS fd eqyfteku izsensoh dks Mkdu dgrs gksa A izsensoh ftUnk
ugha gS] ysfdu dgk¡ gS eq>s irk ugha gSA iqfyl us esjs [kkyh dkxtksa ij gLrk{kj
djk;s FksA iqfyl c;ku ih&13 dk , ls ch Hkkx eSus ugha fy[kk;kA ;g xyr gS fd
eS eqyfteku ls feydj >qBs c;ku ns jgk gq¡A ”
24. We have also considered the statement of PW-8 Dalpat
Singh, also declared hostile by the prosecution, whose statements
are as under: ”
“fdrus lky iqjkuh ckr gS] eq>s irk ugha gS] vkSj dkSulh ckr gS ;g Hkh eq>s irk
ugha gSA uD”kk ekSdk ih&14 ij esjs gh gLrk{kj gSA iqfyl okys xkao esa vk;s Fks]
mUgksaus dkg gLrk{kdj dj nks rks eSaus gLrk{kj dj fn;sA xkao esa D;k gqvk Fkk] iqfyl
D;ksa vkbZ Fkh] eq>s irk ugha gSA iqfyl esa esjs c;ku ugha gq,A
xokg dks i{knzksgh ?kksf’kr djus dh vuqefr pkgh] tks nh xbZ %&
ftjg }kjk fo- yksd vfHk;kstd %%&(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (14 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]iqfyl c;ku izn”kZ ih&15 dk , ls ch Hkkx eSaus ugha fy[kk;kA izsensoh <ksyh dks ugha
tkurkA eSa eqyfteku dks Hkh ugha tkurkA ;g eq>s irk ugha fd ikapksa eqyfteku us
feydj izsensoh dks Mkdu dgdj ekj fn;k gksA ;g eq>s irk ugha fd [ksr ls gekjs
xkao vkrs le; chp esa Hkaojflag njksxk dk edku gksA xkao esa ljdkj ykbZV ds [kaHkksa
ij cYc yxs gks] irk ughaA eSa jkeikyh <ksyh dks ugha tkurkA eSa nsojkt o txnh”k
<ksyh dks Hkh ugha tkurkA ;g xyr gS fd eSa >qBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA”
25. The above two statements of PW-7 and PW-8 show that
since inception the complete story as reported by PW-9 Devraj
is false and there is no eye-witness of the same. PW-7 and PW-8
have shown complete ignorance about the incident as reported by
PW-9 and further PW-7 even refused to recognise the accused
person.
26. Further, we have considered the statement of PW-9 Devraj,
son of the deceased, who stated that he was informed about the
said incident by PW-7 and PW8, as mentioned above in Exhibit P-1
report dated 24.9.2010. When PW-7 and PW-8 expressed no
knowledge and information about the incident and also failed to
recognise the accused persons then the complete incident as
reported by PW-9-complainant Devraj looses its veracity and is
nothing more than a bundle of false facts on the basis of which the
entire story of prosecution is based. The statement of PW-9 Devraj
are reproduced as under:- ”
“fnukad 23-09-09 “kke 7 ;k 8 cts dh ckr gSA djhc 8 ;k 9 efgus igys dh ckr
gSA esjh tehu dk.;k esa gSA mldks lEHkkyus ds fy;s esjh eka izse xbZ FkhA ge
ukgjx<+ jgrs FksA mxek dk yM+dk HkkM+k vkSj tehu ysus ds fy;s vk;s Fks] eSaus euk
dj fn;kA fQj 3&4 efgus ckn esa esjh eka dk.;k xbZ gqbZ FkhA eSa M~;wVh ij x;k gqvk
Fkk] fd dk.;k ls Qksu vk;k fd esjh eka chekj gSA fQj Qksu vkus ds ckn eS]
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (15 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]txnh”k dk.;k xkao x;sA igys ge dk.;k ckM+s esa x;s Fks] tkdj ns[kk rks esjh eka
ugha feyhA fQj ge esjh eka ds ?kj ij x;s rks ns[kk fd esjh eka ejh gqbZ iM+h FkhA
nyirflag] nsosUnz flag us ;g crk;k fd ekjihV djds ekj fn;k gS] ftldh fjiksVZ
nhA esjh ek esjh ukuh ds ?kj ij ejh gqbZ iM+h FkhA esjh ek ds lkFk mxek] lkojk]
thojkt y{eh vkSj egkohj vkSj nsljk lkojk us ekjihV dh os dqy N% vkneh FksA
Mk;u dgdj ds tehu ds pDdj esa esjh ek dh gR;k dj nh] bldh eSaus fjiksVZ dh
tks izn”kZ ih 16 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs nLrdr gSA
esjh eka dh yk”k dk iapukek cuk;k Fkk tks izn”kZ ih 17 gS] ftl ij ,
ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA esjh eka dh yk”k eSaus iqfyl ls izkIr fd;k Fkk] tks izn”kZ ih 18
gS] ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA
bl ?kVuk ds ckjs esa jke/ku us dk.;k ls Qksu fd;k FkkA]
uksV %& xokg ls fo- yks- vfHk- us /kkjk 154 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds rgr ,d iz”u
lksuw o eklh ds ckjs iwNus dh vuqefr pkgh ftl ij nksuksa dks lquk x;k bl ij
U;k;ky; }kjk ,d iz”u iwNus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA
iz”u 1 %& vkidh ekSlh vkSj mldh cPph lksuw us vkidks D;k crk;k \
mRrj %& mUgksaus crk;k fd lkojk] mxek] egkohj] y{eh] us ekjihV djds ekj
fn;kA
izfr ijh{k.k }kjk vf/koDrk eqfYteku %&
fjiksVZ izn”kZ ih&16 esjh [kqn dh gLrfyih esa ugha gS A mxek dk yM+dk tehu
[kjhnus ds fy;s vk;k FkkA ;g ckr eSaus fjiksVZ esa fy[kokbZ FkhA mxek dk yM+dk
ckM+k [kjhnus vk;k Fkk] ;g ckr Hkh fjiksVZ esa fy[kokbZ Fkh] tks izn”kZ ih 16 esa D;ksa
ugha fy[kh eq>s irk ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ckM+s dk esjs ikl dksbZ iV~Vk
ugha gksA ;g lgh gS fd ckM+k nyir flag o nsosUnz flag ls [kjhnk fQj dgk nknk
cgknqj flag ls [kjhnkA ;g lgh gS fd ge x;s rks gekjh eka ejh gqbZ iM+h FkhA ge
ogka lqcg 10&11 cts rd igqap x;s FksA ;g ?kVuk “kke 7&8 cts dh gSA iqfyl us
esjs nLrdr 5&10 dkxtksa ij djok;sa FksA esjs dks ?kVuk nyir flag o nsosUnz flag
us crkbZA fjiksVZ izn”kZ ih 16 Fkkusnkj th us fy[kh FkhA Fkkusnkj th xqykciqjk okys
FksA ;g lgh gS fd Qly vkfn laHkkyus o fltkjk nsus esjh eka gh dk.;k xkao tkrh
FkhA ;g fjiksVZ xqykciqjk tkdj nh FkhA ekjihV djus okys esjh eka dks jksM ij gh
ekj dj Hkx x;s FksA ckn esa esjh ekSlh o lksuw esjh eka dh yk”k dks ysdj vk;s A
jkeikyh esjh ekSlh yxrh gS o lksuw esjh cgu yxrh gSa esjh eka dh yk”k jksM ij(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (16 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]iM+h Fkh ckn esa lksuw vkSj ekSlh dks irk yxk rks oks ysdj vk;sA tks ckn esa ysdj
vk;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd gekjs xkao ds xksfoUn flag] xksikyflag] eksgCcr flag th]
calh yky th vkfn us eqdnesa dh dk;Zokgh djokbZ Fkh] esjs lkFk x;s FksA bu yksxksa
vkSj eqfYtekuksa dh chp esa vkil esa jaft”k gks rks eq>s irk ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS
fd esjh eka dks vU; O;fDr ekj x;s gks vkSj jaft”k ds dkj.k mDr O;fDr ds uke
fy[kk fn;sA ;g xyr gS fd >wBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA
27. PW-23 Kumari Sonu in her statement stated that the
accused persons were beating her aunt Prem Devi with sticks, on
account of which she (Prem Devi, deceased) ran towards the
house of Devi Singh. She specifically named the accused-
respondents namely Jeevraj, Lakshmi, Sanwara, Mahaveer. She
also stated that her aunt was beaten up with sticks, stones, chain
and after severe beatings they left her there only. As per PW-23
place of incident is their house, whereas as per PW-9 the body
was found on the road. Further, interestingly as per PW-24 it was
PW-8 who informed her that body of deceased is lying behind the
temple.
There are serious contradictions in the statements of PW-23,
PW-24, PW-7 & PW-8 regarding the incident as reported by PW-9
solely on the basis of the information stated to have been given to
him by PW-7 & PW-8. Their statements further shows that the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused respondents.
28. We have already noted that PW-7 and PW-8, both declared
as hostile by the prosecution, did not support the incident as
reported by PW-9 Devraj and further, the serious contradictions as
discussed above, declares that PW-23 and PW-24 are not the eye-
witnesses of the alleged incident and further PW-7 & PW-8 both
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (17 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
witnesses have expressed ignorance about the incident and
refused to recognise even the accused persons.
29. Though, learned Public Prosecutor argued only in respect of
PW-23 and PW-24, however, while going through the judgment
passed by the learned Trial Court, we have also considered the
statement of PW-27 Nehal Singh, who is the Investigating Officer
of the case. As per the report Exhibit P-16 dated 24.09.2010
made by PW-9 Devraj, the accused respondent caused the alleged
incident as they were under the belief that mother of PW-9 i.e.
deceased Prem Devi used to practice evil magic which is causing
destruction and damage to the family of the accused-respondents
and PW-9 further stated in the report that the accused wanted to
purchase the ‘bara’/’bara land’ ¼ckM+k½ from their mother and
therefore they had the motive behind the alleged incident. In the
entire investigation as done by PW-27 Nehal Singh, there is no
investigation in regard to alleged purchase or sale of land and
further neither there is any investigation nor any witness has
stated about the alleged magic evil story as narrated in the report
by PW-9 Devraj. This shows that no investigation was conducted
in respect of the allegations as made in the complaint made by
PW-9 and therefore the complete record of case shows that the
prosecution and the investigation travelled in two different
direction which led to failure of the prosecution story.
30. As per Exhibit P-14, (the site-plan) the body was recovered
at the place “X” and there are houses on both the sides. Place “X”
is on common public way but not a single neighbour was made
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (18 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
witness in the present case. It is difficult to believe that when such
an incident had happened, no neighbour noticed the same and
therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the alleged incident at all
happened at the place of which Exhibit P-14 was prepared by the
Investigating Officer. Further PW-23 and PW-24 stated that the
incident happened in their house whereas Exhibit P-14 is an open
road which further declares the statements of PW-23 and PW-24
as well as Exhibit P-14 as doubtful.
According to PW-23 and PW-24 the witness Dalpat Singh i.e.
PW-8 informed them that the body is lying behind temple and in
the site-plan, there is no mention of temple. Therefore, there is
no clear evidence regarding the place of incidence and the site-
plan i.e. Exhibit-P/4 cannot be considered to be a correct
documentary evidence.
31. On the basis of the above discussion, this Court finds that
there are serious material contradictions in the statements of
PW-9 (complainant), PW-23 and PW-24, who are stated to be the
eye-witnesses and further PW-7 and PW-8 who stated to have
given the information first to PW-9 regarding the alleged incident,
have also been declared hostile by the prosecution as both these
witnesses expressed their ignorance about the complete incident
and refused to even recognise the accused persons. This
demolishes the complete foundation of the prosecution story. Not
only the complainant PW-9 Devraj but PW-23 & PW-24 have
stated that they received the information about the incident from
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34624-DB] (19 of 19) [CRLA-687/2012]
PW-8 Dalpat Singh and when the witness PW-8 Dalpat Singh has
turned hostile, then the complete story of the prosecution goes.
32. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not
committed any mistake in passing the judgment of acquittal dated
30.11.2011 and we also find that the learned Trial Court
considered the statements and documentary evidence minutely
while passing the judgment of acquittal. Therefore this Court is
not inclined to make any interference in the judgment while
strictly following the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Babu
Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka,
Constable 907 Surendra Singh(Supra) and State of
Uttarakhand Vs. Sanjay Ram Tamta where the principle have
been laid down as to the circumstances in which the Appellate
Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
33. In terms of the above, the appeal filed by the State is
dismissed.
34. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the
learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
20- Sanjay Singh
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:49:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link