The State of Rajasthan v. Nasirabad Sadar, Distt. Ajmer

7. Jagdish S/o Shri Chagganlal, R/o Rambadi, P.S. Nasirabad Sadar, Distt. Ajmer.

8. Sharavanlal S/o Shri Ugma, R/o Village Rambadi, P.S. Nasirabad Sadar, Disst. Ajmer. ----Accused-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jeetendra Singh Rathore, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 15/09/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-

1. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the order dated

03.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer in S.T. [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (2 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000] Case No.4/1997, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences u/s 302, 325, 323, 147, 307 in alternative u/s 302, 307, 325, 323, 147 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on the basis of statement recorded on 25.07.1996 of PW-2 Suraj Karan an FIR No.138/96 was registered at the Police Station Nasirabad Sadar. It was stated that on an application given in gram panchayat for measurement of the baada and passage, today at about 4.30 PM, Gauri Shankar, Kamlesh, Kishni Bheel, Ward Members of Gram Panchayat Ramsar came for spot inspection. Thereafter, Suraj Karan, Chotti, Prakash, Chujja Jat were called to point out the area in dispute. After inspecting the spot, the Ward Members along with the persons called, reached the house of Suraj Karan where the accused armed with Lathis and wooden staff were standing. There was altercation between Vijay Karan (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and Shrawan. Deceased, Suraj Karan, Soni and Chhoti were inflicted injuries by the accused. PW-1 Kamal Kishore went to the police station and on arrival of the police, the injured were taken to hospital in an ambulance. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 25.07.1996 and the post- mortem was conducted on 26.07.1996. The cause of the incident between the parties was a dispute regarding land and the passage. After presentation of challan, charges were framed against the accused u/s 147, 302, 307, 323 and 325 IPC and in the alternative under Sections 147, 302, 307, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited fourty three documents. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied the allegations and claimed [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (3 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000] trial. In defence, two witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited. The trial court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence, giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case of the prosecution was supported by seven eye-witnesses including three injured in the incident, the trial court erred in acquitting the accused. The submission is that three injured witnesses had sustained injuries in the incident and the deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by the accused and the case of the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the relationship between both the parties were strained due to land dispute as admitted by PW-7 Chhoti in her cross-examination. There was previous history of revenue litigation and criminal proceedings between the parties. Against the accused Shrawan Lal FIR was registered at instance of Pratapi, sister of Suraj Karan. The contention is that the complainant was the aggressor and fired at Dharamveer with a country-made pistol (hereinafter referred to as ‘katta’) however, the bullet got stuck. It is argued that the two defence witnesses affirmed that injuries were inflicted to the deceased and the injured by the villagers who collected at the spot and intervened on the deceased firing upon Dharamveer.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The case of the prosecution is that deceased and the injured witnesses were attacked upon by the accused with lathis and wooden staffs. To substantiate the allegations, three injured- [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (4 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000] PW-2 Suraj Karan, PW-6 Soni and PW-7 Chhoti were examined as witnesses. PW-1 Kamal Kishore, Ward Member and PW-5 Gauri Shankar deposed to support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court considering that PW-2 Suraj Karan, PW-6 Soni and PW-7 Chhoti were relatives of deceased were held to be interested witnesses. It was taken note that not only the revenue dispute was pending between the parties, but an FIR was also registered against accused-Shravan Lal by Pratapi-sister of the PW-2 Suraj Karan in which the accused was acquitted and there is possible motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused.

7. Three prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 Suraj Karan, PW-6 Soni and PW-7 Chhoti injured in incident apart from being held to be interested witnesses attributed no specific role to any of the accused of having inflicted injuries to injured or the deceased. The eye-witnesses PW-3 Ram Prasad and PW-8 Ram Pratap were related to the complainant and no explanation was put forth as to how they were present at the time of incident. The testimony of PW-1 Kamal Kishore, PW-5 Gauri Shankar, Ward Members did not enhance the case of the prosecution as they had not attributed any specific role to any of the accused.

8. The other aspect taken into account by the trial Court was that for the incident there was a cross case registered, as admitted by PW-13 Nem Singh (Investigating Officer). As per the cross-case, the deceased armed with a country made pistol fired upon Dharamveer but the bullet got stuck. The villagers present at spot nabbed the deceased, snatched the firearm and inflicted injuries to the deceased. In the process of intervening and shielding the deceased, PW-2 Suraj Karan, PW-6 Soni and PW-7 [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (5 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000] Chhoti sustained injuries. The I.O. also stated that in cross case the firearm used by the deceased was recovered. The allegations in the cross-case registered by the accused are substantiated by DW-1 Ramchandra and DW-2 Mangu and both are independent witnesses, whereas on the other hand, the majority witness who supported the case of prosecution are relative of the complainant.

9. The case of the prosecution was heavily dented by the allegations in the cross-case registered by the accused, wherein the injuries sustained by the deceased and injured were attributed to the mob of villagers present at the spot.

10. The prosecution failed to give a reasonable explanation with regard to the delay of almost seven hours in registering the FIR. No reason was mentioned for not recording the statement or dying declaration of the deceased. It was not case set up that the deceased was not medically fit for recording of the statement.

10. The scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal is well-settled and reference in this regard is made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] held:- “40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows: “8. xxx xxx xxx

8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (6 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000]

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re- appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3.The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating 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; and

8.5. 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.”

41. 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:

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; [2025:RJ-JP:37476-DB] (7 of 7) [CRLA-399/2000]

41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

41.3. 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.”

11. The view taken by the trial court is plausible one, suffers from no factual or legal error much less perversity. The scope of another view being possible shall not be a ground for interference the appeal against acquittal. The appeal is dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/54 Reportable: Yes