The High Court dismissed the State's criminal leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal of accused persons for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, finding no illegality in the lower court's decision to acquit on the specific charge.
Leave to appeal dismissed; acquittal upholds.
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. 94 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
All the accused respondents by caste Meghwal, R/o Mayangar Colony, Gulabpura, Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara. (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sarupria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
30/03/2017
This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 6/2013, whereby the trial court has acquitted all the accused respondents from the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, however, convicted the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324/34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly.
Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondent No.1 had
(2 of 3)
[CRLLA-94/2016]
inflicted injury upon the injured-Naresh which is dangerous to life while the respondent No.2 caught hold of him and the other accused respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had accompanied them. It is contended that looking to the said piece of evidence, the trial court has committed errer in acquitting the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondents have assaulted the injured-Naresh with intention to kill him. It is also contended that from the evidence of PW-9 Dr. Arun Nahar, it is clear that though the injury upon the injured-Naresh was grievous in nature but he has not specifically stated that the same was dangerous to life.
Learned counsel for the accused respondents has further argued that the weapon used in the commission of crime was a kitchen knife and looking to these circumstances, it is clear that the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no intention to kill the injured-Naresh.
Learned counsel for the accused respondents has further argued that as a matter of fact from the prosecution evidence, it is not proved that at the time of incident, accused respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had accompanied the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove their involvement in commission of crime.
Learned counsel for the accused respondents has therefore submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.
(3 of 3)
[CRLLA-94/2016]
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record.
The eye-witnesses namely PW-1 Narsinghlal, PW-2 Nareshinjured, PW-6 Dinesh, PW-8 Bhagwan have stated that the accused respondents were quarreling with the injured-Naresh and the father of Naresh PW-1 had intervened and separated them and thereafter he sent his son to the house and while he was making conversation accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came there and thereafter accused respondent No.2 caught hold of the Naresh and respondent No.1 inflicted knife injury upon the abdomen of him. All the above eye-witnesses have not specified any role of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. As per the statement of Dr. PW-9 Arun Nahar, the injury of the injured Naresh was grievous but in his statement he has nowhere stated that the said injury was dangerous to life. It is to be noticed that the weapon recovered at the instance of accused respondent No.1 was a kitchen knife.
Having gone through the record of the case, particularly the evidence produced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC, hence, no case for interference is made out.
Resultantly, this leave to appeal is dismissed.
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's decision acquitting accused respondents of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the evidence established an intention to kill despite the accused being convicted for lesser offences.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Ramesh S/o Kishan Lal Meghwal
Bhanwar Lal S/o Nimba Ram Meghwal
Sukhi Devi W/o Kishan Lal Meghwal
Sita Devi W/o Ramavtar Meghwal
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
