Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Babu Lal and Anr.

Rajasthan HC24 Oct 2018CRLLA/326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a leave to appeal against acquittal, the High Court examined discrepancies in injury measurements, X-ray timelines, and weapon recovery evidence. Finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Leave to Appeal dismissed; Acquittal of respondents upheld.

State of Rajasthan Vs Babu Lal and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 326/2017

State Of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Babu Lal S/o Phusa Ram, B/c Prajapat, Resident Of Tanawada, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

¶7

Jodha Ram S/o Phusa Ram, B/c Prajapat, Resident Of Tanawada, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P. For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Order

¶12

24/10/2018

¶13

This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the State seeking leave to file criminal appeal against the judgment dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No.75/2014 whereby, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC and Section 336 IPC.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the statement of PW-1-Rajendra, PW-12-Dr.Imran and Exhibit-13, it is clear that the accused respondents had inflicted a grievous injury on the head of PW-1-Rajendra and the said injury was dangerous to life, however, the trial court without appreciating the said peace of evidence in right perspective

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLLA-326/2017]

¶17

has erred in acquitting the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC. It is also submitted that the other witnesses namely PW-2-Dinesh and PW-3-Mahendra have also supported the prosecution story and specifically stated that the accused respondents had inflicted a grievous injury on the head of the injured PW1-Rajendra, however, the trial court has wrongly disbelieved the testimonies of the said witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that a “ Kunth ” was recovered at the instance of accused respondent-Babu Lal and taking into consideration the overall evidence available on record, it is clear that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused respondents, however, the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting them for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC.

¶18

Heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scrutinized the record.

¶19

The trial court while acquitting the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC has observed that though PW-12-Dr.Imran has stated that the injury No.1 of PW-1-Rajendra was sharp injury grievous in nature and is dangerous to life measuring 11x2 cms while taking into consideration the X-Ray report but in the Exhibit P-15, the discharge ticket prepared by the same witness PW-12-Dr. Imran, it is clearly mentioned that the injury on the head of the PW-1-Rajendra is 5x2 cms and lacerated wound. The trial court has observed that the said doctor has failed to explain that as to how the injury on the head was

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CRLLA-326/2017]

¶22

mentioned as a lacerated wound and the size of the said injury was mentioned as 5x2 cms.

¶23

Looking to the said discrepancies, the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injury on the head of PW-1-Rajendra was caused by the accused respondents and the same was grievous in nature and dangerous to life.

¶24

The trial court has also observed that though the injured person was referred for repeat X-Ray on 25.04.2014 but this repeat X-Ray was done on 03.05.2014 and PW-1-Rajendra in his statement has admitted that from 25.04.2014 to 03.05.2014, he was at Ahmedabad and taking into consideration the said fact, it cannot be said that the X-Ray report Exhibit-P-13 was of the same injury which was first X- Rayed on 24.04.2014.

¶25

So far as the recovery of the “ Kunth ” is concerned, the trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the said “ Kunth ” was recovered on 04.07.2014 and the prosecution has failed to produce any definite evidence to the effect that the said weapon was used in commission of crime because it was not blood stained. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the witness of the said recovery PW-7-Vinod has turned hostile whereas, another recovery witness Jagdish has not been produced by the prosecution as witness in the court, therefore, the recovery of the said “ Kunth ” is also doubtful.

¶26

Having gone through the overall facts and circumstances of the case and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CRLLA-326/2017]

¶29

committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

¶30

In view of the above discussion, no case for grant of leave is made out. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal preferred by the State is dismissed.

¶31

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶32

Taruna

State of Rajasthan v. Babu Lal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Babu Lal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs State

Rehmat Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Sudha Joshi Vs Jagdish Mochi

Madho Lal Kandara Vs UOI and Anr.

State Vs Ranjeet Singh

State Vs Jugta Ram