Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Tilok Ran and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2023CRLA/270/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an order of acquittal. The court held that the trial court's findings were reasonable and plausible, noting credibility issues with the complainant's delayed FIR and contradictions among eyewitnesses, thus refusing to disturb the verdict of not guilty.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed as bereft of merit, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.

State of Rajasthan Vs Tilok Ran and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 270/1992

¶4

The State Of Rajasthan

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tilok Ram S/o Idan Jat

¶8

Ramchandra S/o Idan Jat

¶9

Mohni W/o Idan Jat

¶10

Gula Ram S/o Idan Jat R/o Saindi, P.S. Bhawanda, District Nagaur.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. R. Bishnoi, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶14

Judgment

¶15

12/07/2023

¶16

By the Court (Per Hon’ble Vijay Bishnoi, J) :

¶17

This criminal appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 22.02.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.02/89, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant – Roopa Ram S/o Ram Sukh (P.W.-9) resident of village Senani, District Nagaur gave an oral information on 25.04.1988 at 3:40 AM

¶19

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶20

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶21

(2 of 11)

¶22

at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur stating therein that on 24.04.1988, at around 8:00 AM, he proceeded towards village Dhyawa for some domestic work from his house and Sipudi, Situdi, Sugnai, Mandki, his son Tejaram and grand-sons Mahadev & Sehdev were at his house. At around 11:00 AM, when he was coming towards village Senani from village Dhyawa, his grand sons Mahadev and Sehdev approached him and informed that his son Tejaram had been killed by Aidan and his family members. He immediately returned to his house, where his wife informed him that around 9:00 AM, when deceased – Tejaram proceeded towards the house of Bhaguram Kumhar, then Aidan and his family members attacked him in front of their house and brutally assaulted him, which resulted into his death. It is also stated by complainant Rooparam that his wife Sipudi as well as Situdi and Sugnai have witnessed the assault on deceased Tejaram.

¶23

On the basis of the said oral report, the police registered an FIR No.6/88 (Exhibit-P/2) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 IPC against seven persons, however, after investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondents – Tilokaram, Ramchandra, Mohini and Gularam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. The trial court has framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.

¶24

To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the prosecution has produced as many as 14 witnesses and also

¶25

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶26

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶27

(3 of 11)

¶28

got exhibited several documents. The accused respondents have produced 3 witnesses in defence and got exhibited 8 documents. The learned trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties and after analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence, acquitted the accused – respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges against the accused – respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State has argued that the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondents from the offences for which they were charged. It is submitted that the trial court has also erred in not relying on the testimony of complainant Rooparam (P.W.9) and the other eye witnesses. It is further submitted that the prosecution produced cogent evidence to prove that the accused – respondents, armed with deadly weapons, had caused grievous injuries on the person of Tejaram, which resulted into his death. It is also argued that the prosecution has also proved that the accused – respondents, in furtherance of common intention, had wilfully caused injuries on the person of Tejaram. It is argued that the learned trial court has disbelieved the statements of the eye witnesses without giving any justifiable reason.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the trial court has erred in holding that there was delay in filing the FIR, though complainant – Rooparam (P.W.-9) has explained the delay in filing the FIR satisfactorily. It is also submitted

¶31

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶32

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶33

(4 of 11)

¶34

that the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of complainant – Rooparam (P.W.-9) solely on the ground that he had lodged the FIR with delay. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the prosecution has proved the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused – respondents, but the trial court has disbelieved the same in illegal manner. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused – respondents beyond reasonable doubt, however, the trial court, without appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution in lawful manner, has acquitted the accused – respondents from the charges framed against them.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court may be set aside and consequential order be passed.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and argued that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the offences, for which they were charged because the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges against the respondents by producing cogent and reliable evidence.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the complainant and the other eye witnesses. It is argued that the conduct of the complainant of lodging FIR with a

¶38

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶39

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶40

(5 of 11)

¶41

delay of around 17 hours is highly doubtful. From the evidence of the complainant, it is clear that he was not telling the truth and has falsely implicated the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the eye witnesses, namely, Sipudi (P.W.-4), Situdi (P.W.-7) and Sugnai (P.W.-8) as their presence, at the scene of crime, is highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the trial court has also rightly disbelieved the evidence of Mahadev (P.W.-5) and Sehdev (P.W.-6) as their evidence is not reliable.

¶42

It is argued that the law is well settled that if the conclusions recorded by the trial court while acquitting the accused persons are reasonable and plausible, the High Court would be slow in disturbing the findings of the trial court without there being any compelling circumstances. It is submitted that in the present case, the reasons and the finding given by the learned trial court are not suffering from any infirmity, hence, it is not a case warranting interference of the High Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed that the present appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

The law in respect of hearing of an appeal against an order of acquittal by the High Court is well settled. The Privy Council in Sheo Swarup & Ors. Vs. The King Emperor reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 and thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that

¶45

(6 of 11)

¶46

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶47

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶48

although in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the power of High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion, is an extensive power as in an appeal against the order of conviction. Yet as a role of prudence, the High Court should give proper consideration on the points such as : (I) the views of the trial court are to the credibility of the witnesses; (II) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly in weakened by the fact that he or she has been acquitted by the trial court; (III) the right of the accused to give benefit of doubt and (IV) the slowness of the appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

¶49

It is also well settled that where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. It is further held that if the main grounds, on which the court below has passed its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable & plausible and cannot be entirely or effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.

¶50

Keeping in mind the above settled position of law, we have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record as well as the findings arrived at by the trial court.

¶51

The prosecution’s case was based mainly on the evidence of complainant - Rooparam (P.W.-9) (father of the deceased), Sipudi (P.W.-4) (wife of the complainant & mother of the

¶52

(7 of 11)

¶53

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶54

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶55

deceased) and Situdi (P.W.-7) & Sugnai (P.W.-8) (sisters-inlaw of the deceased).

¶56

The trial court has disbelieved the testimony of Rooparam (P.W.-9) on the ground of various infirmities and we have also carefully gone through the evidence of Rooparam (P.W.9). Though, the incident took place on 24.04.1988 between 9:30 AM to 10:30 AM, but the FIR in relation to that incident was lodged on 25.04.1988 at about 3:40 AM at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, which is around 25 kms far from the place of incident. The complainant Rooparam (P.W.-9) has stated that though he proceeded to the Police Station for reporting the matter immediately, but as the accused – respondents Tilok Ram and Gula Ram had prevented him to do so, he came back to his house and remained there till the night of 24.04.1988 and in the late night, he took a jeep to reach Aasop and from there, he took another jeep to reach the Police Station and thereafter reported the matter to the Police. He has further stated that first he proceeded towards the Police Station at about 11:00 AM and boarded a bus, but on the next stop, accused Tilok Ram and Gula Ram also boarded the same bus, therefore, he alighted from the bus. He has further stated that he had an apprehension that the accused persons might cause harm to him.

¶57

The learned trial court has disbelieved the said contention of the complainant while taking into consideration that he went alone to check whether Tejaram has died or not to the house

¶58

(8 of 11)

¶59

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶60

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶61

of the accused persons, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that he had any threat from the accused persons.

¶62

It is to be noticed that the complainant, in his court statement, has stated that when he boarded the bus, Mehraram (P.W.-11) had accompanied him, however, Mehraram (P.W.-11) has not supported the prosecution story and specifically stated in his cross-examination that he did not accompany the complainant – Rooparam when he boarded the bus while proceeding towards the Police Station. It is also to be noticed that Rooparam (P.W.-9) and his wife Sipudi (P.W.-4) in their court statements have admitted that two to four buses ply between Senani and Aasop in whole day and in such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the accused respondents – Tilokaram and Gularam prevented him from proceeding towards the police station even if they boarded the same bus from which the complainant alighted, however, the complainant had occasion to take another bus to reach the police station. It is true that in every case, delay in lodging complaint/FIR cannot be fatal, but the reasons supplied by complainant for lodging complaint/FIR with police must be reasonable and satisfactory, which in this case are missing.

¶63

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the reasons supplied by complainant - Rooparam (P.W.-6) for delay in filing the FIR.

¶64

So far as the eye witnesses namely Sipudi (P.W.-4), Situdi (P.W.-7) and Sugnai (P.W.-8) are concerned, the trial court

¶65

(9 of 11)

¶66

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶67

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶68

has disbelieved their testimony while observing serious contradictions.

¶69

Having gone through the evidence of Sipudi (P.W.-4), Situdi (P.W.-7) and Sugnai (P.W.-8), we find that the trial court has rightly disbelieved their evidences.

¶70

Sipudi (P.W.-4) has stated that when they reached near the house of Durgaram, they heard cries of Tejaram, whereas Situdi (P.W.-7) in her cross-examination has stated that some children were shouting that Tejaram is being assaulted by the accused persons, then only they came to know that Tejaram is attacked and thereafter they approached scene of crime. At the same time, Situdi (P.W.-7) has stated that she saw the accused persons holding Tejaram and dragging him towards their house, however, this is not the version of Sipudi (P.W.-4). All the said eye witnesses have also stated different time about leaving the house by the deceased Tejaram. Sipudi (P.W.-4), in her cross-examination, has stated that they have immediately left the house when Tejaram left the house, however, Sugnai (P.W.-4) has stated that they have left the house after some time when Tejaram left their house.

¶71

It is important to note here that all the above witnesses, namely Sipudi (P.W.-4), Situdi (P.W.-7) and Sugnai (P.W.-8) have stated that though the deceased Tejaram was attacked and brutally assaulted by the accused persons in the broad day light, but none of the villagers saw the incident despite hearing their cries and did not assemble at the place of incident, which is thickly populated and surrounded by the

¶72

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶73

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶74

residence of the villagers. All the above named witnesses have also stated that they have not sought any help from any of the villagers and have also not told about the incident to any villager. Such conduct of the above named witnesses cannot be believed because son of P.W.-4 and brother-in law of P.W.-7 & P.W.-8 was being brutally assaulted by the accused respondents and they did not inform any of the villagers including their relatives about the incident.

¶75

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court has disbelieved the testimony of Sipudi (P.W.-4), Situdi (P.W.-7) and Sugnai (P.W.-8) and in our opinion, the trial court has rightly done so.

¶76

So far as the recovery of the weapons, at the instance of the accused respondents is concerned, the trial court has observed that recovery was made after many days of the incident and it is also observed that it is doubtful that the seized weapons reached for chemical examination at FSL, Jaipur intact because as per Prahlad Ram (P.W.-2), he took 9 sealed packets to the FSL Jaipur on 17.05.1988 and reached Jaipur on 18.05.1988, however, on account of holiday on that day, he deposited the same at malkhana of FSL, Jaipur on 19.05.1988. He has also stated that on 18.05.1988, he remained in the Police Line, Jaipur and 9 sealed packets were with him, however, Lalchand (P.W.-12), SHO has stated that Prahalad Ram (P.W.-2) stayed in the night of 18.05.1988 at Police Station Bhawanda.

¶77

So far as evidence of Mahadev (P.W.-5) and Sehdev (P.W.-6) are concerned, they have only stated that they informed

¶78

(11 of 11)

¶79

[2023:RJ-JD:21110-DB]

¶80

[CRLA-270/1992]

¶81

their grandfather about the incident and have not stated that they witnessed the incident.

¶82

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is made out.

¶83

Resultantly, the present appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶84

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶85

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶86

106-AjaySingh/-

State of Rajasthan v. Tilok Ran and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Tilok Ran and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarwar Khan @ Sheru Vs State of Rajasthan

Anop Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sukhveer @ Kulli Vs the State of Rajasthan