Appeal by State against trial court's acquittal of respondent charged with murder. High Court found no perversity, as prosecution witnesses did not impute specific overt acts to respondent. Appeal dismissed.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 405/2015
State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Appellant
Versus
Gajralal S/o Bhag Singh
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javed Chaudhary, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
15/07/2019
Respondent Gajralal S/o Bhag Singh along with Ratan Singh S/o Shantiya @ Shantilal Kanjar, Gajralal S/o Shantiya @ Shantilal Kanjar and Balwant S/o Sultaniya had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) in FIR No.372 dated 08.11.2010 registered at Police Station Sadar Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. Offence under Section 302 IPC was added after the death of injured Vijendra Singh.
Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 07.11.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., complainant Mahaveer Singh along with his elder brother Vijendra Singh and his uncle Vikaram Singh were travelling on a motorcycle to call the compounder in connection with stomach pain suffered by his mother. Motorcycle was being driven by Vijendra Singh. At about 8.30 p.m. when they reached near village Sitaphal, they were attacked by Gajralal S/o Shantiya @ Shantilal Kanjar, Rataniya S/o Shantiya @ Shantilal Kanjar and
(2 of 4)
[CRLLA-405/2015]
Balwant S/o Sultaniya and one more person armed with sticks. The said persons inflicted injuries to the complainant, Vikaram Singh and Vijendra Singh. Injured were removed to the hospital for treatment, however, Vijendra Singh succumbed to his injuries.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.
Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 341, 323 and 302/34 IPC.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that they had been falsely involved in this case due to enmity.
Trial court vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2015 ordered the acquittal of respondent Gajralal S/o Bhag Singh. So far as the other accused are concerned, they were convicted and sentenced by the trial court qua offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 323, 341 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the State challenging acquittal of the respondent.
We have heard learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Learned trial court while ordering acquittal of respondent has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent was not named in the FIR. PW-1 Mahaveer Singh who is the lodger of the FIR has not attributed any specific overt act to the respondent, although, he has named the respondent in his examination-inchief. In his cross-examination, he deposed that no injury was inflicted by the respondent to the deceased. PW-2 Vikaram Singh
(3 of 4)
[CRLLA-405/2015]
has named the respondent in his statement but has not attributed any specific overt act to the respondent.
In these circumstances, learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that respondent was liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the
(4 of 4)
[CRLLA-405/2015]
appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed”
Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J.
Sanjay Kumawat-5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State, in appeal against acquittal, is entitled to interfere with the trial court's finding of benefits of doubt regarding the respondent's involvement.
Whether there are compelling and substantial reasons to set aside the acquittal of the respondent.
Whether the appellate court can review the evidence to arrive at a conclusion different from the trial court after careful consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of GujaratExplained¶27
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraExplained¶28
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479
5 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of Rajasthan through P.P.
Gajralal S/o Bhag Singh
Sabina
Goverdhan Bardhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
