State of Rajasthan v. Naresh Ram ., Naresh

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMA.R ()RIMINAL APPEAL No.992 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: I 'per Hon'ble Sri Justice K-Surender) 1. The :rtate is questioning the acquittal ol the respondents,/ rlccused for the offence under Sectiol I l )02 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned A dc itional Public Prose:utor appearing on behalf of appellant-Sita te and learned cout-Lsiel for respondents/ accused'

3. Respo:r,lents/accused were prosecuted for k llirrg the d.eceased, n ilmely Laxman Singh. The marriage of a':cused No.l rvas p,erformed with Mamta Bai on l2'O3'2 ) 1 1' The deceasecl arLc accused No. I used to transport illicit Iirluor to various pe: s:ons within the twin cities' Accus ec No' 1 suspectecl t lrat the deceased was having an illicit a ffa ir with his wife. He warned both his wife and the deceas':d When questioned, l.he deceased reprimarrded accused N'rs ' 1 to 4 and tried to attack them. Thereafter, the deceased m oiested accused No 's wife. As a result, accused No' 1 dereloped a grudge against the deceased and wanted to eliminr,rte the deceased ,*,,th the help of accused Nos.2 to 4. In ar:cordance d 2 with their plan, on 04.ll.2O1l, accused Nos. 1 to 4 consumed liquor and asked the deceased to come to the secluded place at fiun dass Baba Nagar at Shibli Hills. Accused Nos.2 to 4 went to the house of accused No. l, brought one axe, and kept it at a place under the bushes. The deceased went there and after consuming the liquor, accused No. I questioned him about having an affair with his wife. At the same time, accused No. I picked up a quEurel and, with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4, inflicted injuries on the deceased with the axe and a stone, resulting in his death. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 4 tied to flee from Hyderabad, and while they were on a train at Secunderabad Railway Station, police apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the prosecution witnesses PWs.l to 13 and also taking into consideration the documents marked as Exs.p1 to 29 and. MOs.1 to 26, did not find favour with the prosecution version and accordingly acquitted the accused. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are:

1. PW2, who is the brother of the deceased, suspected that accused No.l's wife might have killed him, ald accordingly, lodged a complaint. However, the evidence of PW2 is hearsay. J

2. PW: is another brother of the deceased v't o stated that accused No.4 came to their house, Look the dec,:tLsed on his scooter and consumed llqror' and t.he: e after, the deceased did not return ho le ' PW3 fi.rrther stated that he saw accused Nor;1 to 4 run ning away from Shibli Hills However, the r ersion givt r by PW3 was a subsequently developed version'

3. PW I stated. that he saw accused No 4 lvil-h the clec: rsed going on his scooter and later czrme to lmr vr that the deceased had died How:vr':r, his evir trnce does not inspire confidence since ht failed to d entiflr MOl, which was the stone sairl tr have . bee n found on the dead body of the decease 1'

4. PW s.5, 6, ald 1O, independent witnesse s to the :iel: ;1Lres, did not support the case of the prc'se:ution, rrnrl the seizures effected from accused Nos 1 to 4 .'ve r doubtful.

5. 'Ih: motive for murder, that accused No'1 ;ur';pected his ',vife for having an illicit intimacy with cle':eased, wa; not proved by any independent witnesses

5. Havinl3 gone through the record, other th;'m the evidence ol interested witnesses PWs. 1 to 3, wh I r:rre the ,t i t:. I i l i l I l l l i 4 brothers of the deceased stating that they suspected the accused of committing the murder and that a day prior to the dead body being found, accused No.4 was seen taking the deceased on his scooter, there is no other eyldence. The said circumstarrce of accused No.4 travelling with the deceased on the previous day is not suflicient evidence to infer the guilt of the accused.

6. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sharod. Bird.hichand. Sarda o. State of Maharashtrat, held. as follows: "The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circums tantial evidence : ( 1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ,riay be, fulJy established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilly, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (a) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for thl conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 1 lrse+; + scc rro 5 It :is a lrnitted by the Police Officer that the 1e':eased 7 . was a rorvd ' sheeter and was involved in severa I cr iminal cases. The i:rding of the leamed Sessions Judgr: th at the deceasecl ha I several enemies and the probability of zrrtyone else attackir g him cannot be ruled out. In the backE;ro rnd of the prosecu ion not being able to make out a cas() 6rgainst accusecl No: . 1 to 4, the benefrt of doubt is extend'rd to the accusecl. 8, Tb.e Hrn'b1e Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagataju Alias Nagtraia Red'dg u. Sta:te oJ Andhra Ptadesh2, held as fol1c vrs:

15. It is now well settled that the power of th': High Court in an appeal from acquittal is n't rlifl:r'ent from its power in a-n appeal fronL corvLction. IL can review and consider the entir': evi lt:nce and come to its own conclusions b'r ,ritl €r accepting the evidence rejected by the trial cor r[ or rejecting the evidence accepted by th': :riz I court. However, if the High Court decided t'; ,1e1,art from the conclusions reached by the trial .or rl, it should pay due attention to the ground r on 'vhich acquittal was based and state 1h r rea s,)ns as to why it finds the conclusions leadin 3 to te acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear in r ind that (i) the presumption of innocence i'r fav rrrr of the accused is fortfied by the findings cl' tht trial court; (ii) t1 e accused is enLitled t l ber Lt'fit of any doubt; and (iii) the trial court hal tht rrdvantage of examining the demeanour of th: rvil :resses. The cnrx of the matter, however, is whe :her the High Court is able to give clear rez sons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject rh: re€ sons given by the trial court." ' 12006; t:. :;cc +++ 6 9 In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hontrle Supreme Court in Babu a. Sto:he o.f Kerq.ta3, held as follows: l?...1!.State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram ., Naresh.{(2009) 9 SCC 3681, the Court .g"i".*X_irr"J the earlier j udgments of this Court and laid down that ."order of acquittal should not be lightly interfereJ "there i" ;;;; with even if the court believes that evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.,,

13. In State of Uttar pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. f(2009) 4 SCC 27tl, this Court g""" .;;;; rllustrative circumstances in which the dourt woulJ P: i:",if,..9 in interfering wirh a judgment of ,"q;itt; by the High Court. The circumsta_nces includes: i) The High Court,s decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High Court,s conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; , .1ii) fn9 entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently iliegal leading to grave miscarriage ofjustice; . iv) Tle High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust ald unreasonable based on erroneous taw ali facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the fmdings of tne Aigfi Courtf vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when .both th" 6.ssio.r" Corr.t and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. 3 crt-a. No.104709, dated 11.08.2010 .i,? a I I 7

10. The; e rre absolutely no reasons to interfere finding o{ tl Lt: learned Sessions Judge' which is tras ed on "vir-h record a:rrl r :irsonable. 1 1. Acc,rrc i:rgly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissecl' ,,TRUE COPY'I ; "'5'R"''AIXt'#il SF.CTION OFFICER '"'l Iy^ $'::3: Iru,',",:1:::"'"1'J; 'lJ':"ji+31'"S:: . t*tett\''*1Il *"'o"r Urrah Khan' Advocate toPurl 'fi"n!I1'"1'iB'1".n'

4. Two CD CoP e's PIP/gh / , HIGH COURT DATED:20102t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.992 af 2017 I 1, \ o( ,' s'a s $J C.:' ! I '.,..,1 ", J p; 9."1 ,it" DISMISSING THE CRL.A. 7 4 ,,1 7 /2 /^ I