Rajasthan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor Beena Devi Saini W/o Jagdish Saini, R/o Village Bodya Ki Dhani, Gram Post Baskhoh, Police Station Bassi, Dsitrict Jaipur Rajasthan

3. Lada Devi Saini W/o Ramkalyan @ Pappu Saini, R/o Village Bodya Ki Dhani, Gram Post Baskhoh, Police Station Bassi, Dsitrict Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Abhishek Jhingonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/04/2025 1. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 10.01.2024 in Sessions Case No.201/2018 (474/2018) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metro-I, whereby respondents-accused Beena Devi and Lada Devi were acquitted from charge under Section 304 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for appellant-complainant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that on basis of Parcha Bayan by PW- 1 Rajesh Saini and FIR under Sections 323, 341, 143 and 302 IPC was registered on the ground that a group of person with a premeditated plan, has assaulted deceased Nathulal and his family. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against [2025:RJ-JP:19768] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-529/2024] Lada Devi and Smt. Beena Devi. The prosecution has examined several material witnesses, but the Trial Court has acquitted both the accused from the charge. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly named both the respondents-accused and specified the role of both the respondents-accused, and it is evident that only because of assault on head and ear of deceased, he sustained grievous injuries, which resulted into death of deceased. He also submitted that the post mortem report (PMR) also suggested that the death of deceased was due to anti- mortem injuries. He also submitted that the conclusion by Trial Court is contrary to evidence of prosecution and same is perverse and illegal.

3. Aforesaid contentions were supported by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted that prosecution has examined all material witnesses against respondents.

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On basis of report Ex.P-1, FIR No.251/2018 was registered P.S. Bassi, District Jaipur City (East) under Sections 323, 341, 143 and 302 IPC on 20.06.2018 for incident of 19.06.2018. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Beena Devi and Lada Devi under Section 304 IPC. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have examined two evidence DW-1 and DW-2 and exhibited six documents, in defence. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused from charge under Section 304 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:19768] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-529/2024] Instant appeal is preferred by appellant-complainant under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

6. Ex.P-1 was filed by appellant-Rajesh Saini and it shows that at 04.30 PM, there was a dispute between both the parties and police has visited the spot, and after departure of police, the scuffle started and accused party have assaulted upon Nathulal, which resulted into internal injuries, and later, he succumbed to injuries. The body of victim was examined by PW-20 Dr. Banwari Lal and his opinion suggests that probable cause of death is huge subdural hematoma at base of the skull, leading to shock and coma. As per report, there was a swelling over left parietal temporal raising about left ear.

7. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-22 and his admission in cross-examination reflect that deceased was in inebriated condition. The admission also indicate that no information prior to report Ex.P-1 was received at Police Station. The admission also indicate that the assault by both the respondents were not mentioned in report Ex.P-1. The cross- examination of PW-22 indicate that there was stone pelting between both the parties and he is not aware, about the injury upon injured by stone pelting by whom. He further admitted that he is not aware whether the injury was caused by stick (lathi) or by stone.

8. The complainant Rajesh Saini was examined as PW-1, who is not an eye-witness to the incident but he has filed Ex.P-1 in Police Station on next day. PW-2 Indra Devi has deposed that both the accused were having sticks (lathis) and they were assaulting her [2025:RJ-JP:19768] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-529/2024] husband and his friends. The admission also indicate that this witness has not seen the injury upon left side of skull of her husband. The admission of PW-2 further indicate that after the incident, the deceased has taken bath. Another eye-witness PW-6 Nanag Ram, PW-7 Anjali Saini and PW-8 Nisha Saini were examined by the prosecution. All these are related witnesses.

9. We have considered the statements of all prosecution witnesses, who in either manner deposed about the incident. Also taken note of conclusion drawn by the Trial Court. Herein, we are considering an appeal against judgment of acquittal.

10. Having considered the entire evidence and material on record, it is apparent on record that the deceased consumed liquor and he was with his friends in drunkard condition, at the time of incident. The reports suggest that there were two incidents, whereas the evidence suggests otherwise. The police has denied any information prior to registration of report Ex.P-1, whereas prosecution witnesses have claimed that police has disengaged the parties for first time and later, there was a scuffle between the parties for laying barbade fencing. This Court cannot substitute its opinion on the opinion expressed by the Trial Court.

11. The Trial Court after considering the evidence drawn a conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient to draw a conclusion about involvement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Trial Court has drawn a conclusion on basis of evidence, and acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the charge under Section 304 IPC. Wherever, two views are possible then one in favour of accused has to be considered. [2025:RJ-JP:19768] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-529/2024]

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to [2025:RJ-JP:19768] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-529/2024] keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.

14. In light of law as discussed herein above, when we consider evidence of eye-witness as named by the prosecution, we are of considered view there is material contradiction about assault and assignment of blow between these two respondents. There is no uniformity and firmness in the evidence of eye-witnesses and same were rightly considered by the Trial Court. The cause of death of deceased may be anti-mortem injuries and coma with shock, but who is responsible, assault is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In view of discussion made herein above, no ground is made out for admission of the appeal, therefore, the instant criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16. In view of aforesaid, the instant criminal appeal is hereby dismissed, with pending application, if any. GAURAV /76 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J