State of Rajasthan v. For

Judgment

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

25.09.1998 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran

(hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in Sessions case No.105/1997 acquitting the accused-respondents Pappu @ Ramswaroop, Indrraj and Ramhet for the offences under Sections 449, 302, and 302/34 of IPC. However, accused-Indrraj was convicted u/s 323 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case, as set forth by the prosecution, are that FIR No.168/1997 was lodged at Police Station, Mangrol, District Baran on 28.06.1997 by PW-1 Shankarnath (complainant). In the FIR, it was alleged that the complainant had gone to the house of his sister at village Mal Bamori and was resting in the house of Omprakash. At about 10:00 a.m., when mother-in-law of his sister, Smt. Chhoti Bai was cuddling her grandson Niranjan, accused Pappu @ Ramswaroop and [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (2 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999] Indrraj came to the house and started abusing. The complainant and Omprakash came to the gate, thereupon, accused Indrraj started beating Smt. Chhoti Bai and gave lathi blow on her left leg and she fell down, the child Niranjan slipped from her hands. Accused Indrraj hit Chhoti Bai, accused Pappu @ Ramswaroop inflicted a blow on the head of the child and he became unconscious. The child was immediately taken to the doctor at Mangrol and was thereafter referred to the hospital at Baran, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem examination of the Niranjan was conducted and the cause of death was shock due to head injury resulting in bleeding and hematoma of the brain.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, namely, Pappu @ Ramswaroop, Indrraj and Ramhet. The prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and exhibited twenty four documents to prove the case. In defence, four documents were exhibited. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated to be a case of false implication.

4. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the trial court acquitted all the accused from the offences under Sections 302, 325, 449, and 302/34 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of doubt. However, accused Indrraj was found guilty of the offence u/s 323 IPC and was released for the sentence already undergone i.e. three months and twenty days.

5. During pendency of the appeal, accused-respondent No.3 Ramhet expired on 31.05.2023 and appeal qua him was abated.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor, while advancing arguments in the appeal, submitted that the trial court committed a grave illegality in [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (3 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999] acquitting the accused from the offences under Sections 302, 449, and 302/34 IPC, despite the fact that the prosecution had proved the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, relied upon the statements of eye witnesses PW-1 Shankarnath, PW-5 Chhoti Bai, PW-6 Omprakash, PW-3 Ramcharan and PW-9 Prem Bai to submit that from the evidence, it is clear that Indrraj and Pappu @ Ramswaroop attacked Chhoti Bai and Pappu @ Ramswaroop inflicted the injury on the head of the Niranjan as a result of which, he died. Contention is that from the post-mortem report and the statement of PW-13 doctor Purshottam Jhawar it is clear that cause of death was head injury.

7. It is further urged that the prosecution case stood fully supported by the testimonies of the witnesses and was duly corroborated by the recovery of lathi at the instance of the accused-respondents. Hence, it was contended that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court has erred in placing undue emphasis on certain discrepancies in the statements and thereby acquitting the accused-respondents.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the investigation was not done in a fair way. The prosecution failed to establish that an injury was inflicted on the head of the deceased by accused Pappu @ Ramswaroop or Indrraj. It is contended that the head injury was not inflicted but was a consequence of fall, which is evident from the prosecution version initially set up by the complainant in the FIR. It was urged that the incident was purely accidental and the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. Moreover, the accused-Indrraj was convicted for the offence u/s 323 IPC and served the sentence of three months and twenty days. It is stated that [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (4 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999] there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

10. Upon consideration of the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it reveals that FIR No.168/97 (Ex.P.1) was registered by PW-1 Shankarnath and PW-5 Chhoti Bai (grandmother of the deceased). As per version of the FIR, Indrraj and Pappu @ Ramswaroop inflicted injuries and the name of Ramhet does not find place. In the complaint, except the names of PW-1 Shankarnath, PW-5 Chhoti Bai and PW-6 Omprakash, presence of no other person is disclosed. However, in court statement PW-1 Shankarnath has introduced a new version by naming Ramhet as the person who inflicted injury upon Chhoti Bai. He further deposed that his brother-in-law Omprakash was verbally abused by Pappu @ Ramswaroop, Indrraj and Ramhet, and his son was standing near Chhoti Bai. His statement contradicts the first version (Exhibit-1) as well as the statement given by him before the Police that Niranjan fell from the hands of Chhoti Bai. This contradiction makes the presence of the witnesses at the scene of incident doubtful.

11. As far as the testimony of PW-5 Chhoti Bai, who was also present with PW-1 Shankarnath at the time of lodging of FIR and an injured eyewitness, has taken a different stand in her deposition. She states that Indrraj assaulted her and hit Niranjan on his head with the lathi. She stated that Ramhet was present at the time of incident. She was injured in the incident and her presence at the time of incident can not doubted but her testimony diminishes the prosecution case against accused Pappu @ Ramswaroop and Ramhet. [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (5 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999]

12. PW-3 Ramcharan and PW-4 Badrilal also stated that all the three accused were present at the scene and as per Ramcharan, Niranjan fell from the hands of Chhoti Bai and thereafter Pappu @ Ramswaroop inflicted injury on his head. Whereas, their statements are at variance from statement of PW-5 Chhoti Bai who has not attributed any injury to Pappu @ Ramswaroop. The discrepancy makes the statements of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 untrustworthy.

13. PW-6 Omprakash, stated that the motive behind the incident was prior enmity and the incident happened just two days before regarding which the police report was also filed, but neither there is any mention of such incident in the FIR nor Police report was produced on record. Moreover, Omprakash has stated that the accused upon entering the house starting abusing the family member and when stopped they inflicted injuries upon his mother and the deceased. However, his statement is not in consonance with the statement of PW-5 Chhoti Bai. In such circumstances his testimony becomes unreliable and his presence at the place of incident is doubtful.

14. PW-9 Prem Bai states that on the date of incident her brothers- Shankarnath and Ramcharan were sleeping. Thereafter, she stated that her brother was awake, his nephew was eating food, and at that time Indrraj and Ramhet came, whereupon Indrraj inflicted injuries. She subsequently stated that when the incident took place, her brother was sleeping, and further added that Pappu @ Ramswaroop had inflicted injuries on Niranjan. In cross-examination, she admitted that she reached the spot only after the accused had already left, and saw them running away after the incident. From her deposition, it is doubtful that she actually witnessed the occurrence. [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (6 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999]

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we concur with the findings of the learned trial court, which after a detailed analysis of the evidence, has rightly found prosecution witnesses to be inconsistent and unreliable, and has come to the conclusion that the presence of witnesses, namely Prem Bai, Omprakash, Shankarnath, Ramcharan and Badrilal, and they having witnessed the incident, is highly doubtful.

16. Further, PW-10 Dr. Kiran Chand and PW-7 Bachraj, cited as eye- witnesses, have not supported the prosecution version, and denied the presence of Indrraj and were declared hostile. Further, PW-14 Ramswaroop, an eye witness, stated to have intervened at the time of the incident, has also not supported the prosecution version and deposed that he saw Pappu @ Ramswaroop and Ramhet going in front of him.

17. On considering the testimony of the eye-witness PW-5 Chhoti Bai, who herself sustained injuries in the incident, has attributed all the injuries, including the one on the head of the deceased to Indrraj. The alleged head injury given by Indrraj to the deceased is not supported by the medical evidence. PW-13 Dr.Purushottam Jhanwar who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Niranjan, stated that since Niranjan was of a tender age the bones of skull were not fully matured, and that if a deceased of such age falls from the hands of a person on a hard surface, such an injury could be sustained. He further deposed that the injury on the head of Niranjan did not bear any particular shape so as to suggest that it had been caused by any specific weapon. The injury was found to have spread across the left side of head of the deceased, suggestive of injury by fall. The prosecution has failed to connect the injury of the deceased with the specific overt acts attributed to the [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (7 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999] accused, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case.

18. In the absence of any credible link between the injuries and the accused, the evidence of recovery of the lathi at the instance of the accused-respondents also loses its relevance and cannot be relied upon to establish their involvement.

19. In addition thereto, we are also in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court that the Exp-1, the First Information Report appears to be a document created by inserting a wrong time after substantial investigation had been completed. PW.1-Shankarnath himself states that Panchnama of the dead body, the site plan, and delivery of the dead body were signed simultaneously at the time of registration of FIR, which indicates that Exp-1 was prepared post- investigation. This also finds support from the statement of Chotti Bai, who states that she reached the Police Station and lodged the FIR at

4.00 PM. As a result, the FIR was not presented before the concerned magistrate on time. Hence, the FIR and the entire prosecution case comes under the shadow of doubt.

20. Considering the material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and the absence of any credible link between the injuries and the accused the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused for offences under sections 302, 325, 449/34 IPC. Further the trial court has found the offence to be proved only under Section 323 IPC against the accused Indrraj for the injuries inflicted on Chhoti Bai, and sentenced him to the period already undergone, i.e., three months and twenty days, which has not been challenged. [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (8 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999]

21. We find that the trial court has thoroughly and correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, and has assigned cogent and plausible reasons for its findings. Having carefully considered the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses along with the findings of the trial court, we must hold that the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused from the changes under sections 302, 325, 449/34 IPC.

22. The scope of interference in the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [(2024) 8 SCC 149] held:- “38. 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;

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 [2025:RJ-JP:34312-DB] (9 of 9) [CRLA-277/1999] 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; and (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.”

23. While considering the judgment of the learned Trial Court in light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court also, we find that on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, and considering the findings of the Trial Court, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has not fallen in error of law or appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on a sound analysis of the evidence and are neither perverse nor suffer from misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. Further the view taken by the trial court is certainly a possible or plausible view.

24. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court, which deserves to be upheld in its entirety and the appeal stands dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Sunita/31 Whether Reportable: Yes/No