The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed the State's leave to appeal against a trial court acquittal. The Court found severe contradictions in prosecution witness statements and medical evidence, concluding the State failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Leave to appeal is dismissed; the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 234 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
All the accused respondents resident of Devriya, Police Station Fuliyakalan, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi - PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Mertia for Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
27/03/2017
This leave to appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.11/2010, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 325, 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The trial court, after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence, has come to the conclusion that there is severe contradiction in the statements of eye witnesses. It is also observed by the trial court that as many as four Investigating Officers have conducted the investigation and the results of all the
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-234/2016]
investigations are different, wherein the Investigating Agencies have found charges proved against the different persons. The trial court has observed that up to nine months, the statements have been recorded during the course of investigation. It is also observed by the trial court that alleged eye witnesses have not offered any explanation regarding the injuries received by the accused respondent No.1 - Ram Swaroop. The trial court has observed that the doctor produced by the prosecution as prosecution witness, has clearly stated that the injury of the injured Surajkaran was simple in nature and not dangerous to live.
Learned Public Prosecutor while assailing the judgment has argued that all the eye witnesses have specifically stated that the accused respondent No.1 – Ram Swaroop has inflicted a axe blow on the head of the injured PW-5 – Surajkaran and the other accused persons have accompanied him. It is also contended that in the city-scan report, the injury of the injured PW-5 – Surajkaran was found dangerous to live. It is argued that the trial court has not appreciated the said piece of evidence in right perspective and grossly erred in acquitting the respondents, therefore, this leave to appeal may kindly be granted.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents has argued that the trail court after meticulously examining the prosecution evidence has rightly acquitted the accused respondents as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and after carefully
(3 of 3)
[CRLLA-234/2016]
scrutinizing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents. It is noticed that there are severe contradiction in the statements of the alleged eye witnesses viz. PW-1 Smt. Jashoda, PW-2 Smt. Radha, PW-3 Harji, PW-4 Hansraj and PW-5 Surajkaran, who was the injured. It is also noticed that PW-10 Dr. Hari Singh in his statement has specifically stated that the injury upon the head of the injured PW-5 Surajkaran was not dangerous to life.
Having taken into consideration the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in the absence of any proof to the effect that the injury on the head of the injured PW-5 Surajkaran is not dangerous to life, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment impugned passed by the trial court.
Hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.
Accordingly, this leave to appeal is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar C-7/S.No.66
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the leave to appeal filed by the State ought to be allowed against the trial court's acquittal of the accused.
Whether the contradictions in prosecution witness statements and medical evidence warrant interference with the acquittal.
Whether the evidence proves the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Ram Swaroop
Satya Narayan
Smt. Sampat Devi
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
