IMPORTANT POINT
As prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, High Court was justified in recording acquittal of accused.

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-The five respondents along with nineteen other accused persons were charged and tried and by judgment dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, other nineteen accused persons were acquitted whereas the respondents were convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. They were further convicted under Section 147 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The respondents were also convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted the respondents of all the charges.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 14th February, 1990, Manna Lal and Kanwar Lal were coming from village Gehoon Kheda and when they arrived on a pathway at about 2.00 p.m. near the field of one Chandra Singh, Gopal (PW 4), who was working on his field, found that all the accused persons, including the respondents, armed with sword and gandasis, who were waiting there from before in the field of Chandra Singh, chased Manna Lal and Kanwar Lal and assaulted them with their respective weapons. Seeing the assault on Manna Lal and Kanwar Lal, who were uncle and father respectively of Gopal (PW 4), he went towards the village and on the way met his brothers Kalyan (PW 5), Jamna Lal (PW 6) and Dhanna Lal (PW 8) and disclosed to them names of the accused persons, including the respondents. Thereupon, the aforesaid three persons came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away. Manna Lal died instantaneously but Kanwar Lal, who succumbed to the injuries after some time, made an oral dying declaration before the informant-PW 4 disclosing therein names of the accused persons, including respondent Sheo Singh and one Ram Singh, without disclosing their parentage. According to the first information report, the occurrence was witnessed by Mangi Lal Bagri (PW 7) and Mangi Lal Meena besides the informant-PW4. On the basis of the statement of Gopal (PW 4), the first information report is said to have been lodged on the same day at 4.00 p.m.

3. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet on receipt whereof, the Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the twenty four accused persons, including the respondents, to the court of Session to face trial.

4. Defence of the accused, in short, is that they are innocent, had no complicity with the crime but were falsely implicated to feed fat the old grudge. According to them, the victims might have received injuries in some other manner of occurrence at the hands of some unknown persons and they have been roped in the present case out of animosity.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case. The Additional Sessions Judge upon the conclusion of trial acquitted other nineteen accused persons but convicted the respondents as stated above. On appeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted the respondents of all the charges. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.

6. Ms. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, in support of the appeal submitted that the High Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges and the reasonings for acquittal recorded by it are perverse. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not justify reasoning of the High C