1991 Supreme(Raj) 505
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Farooq Hassan, J.
Khinwaram and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 494 of 1982.
Decided On : 28-01-1991
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any contradictions or material infirmities in the prosecution case will lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - 147, 436, 436/149 IPC - Fact of the Case, Finding of the Court, Issues, Ratio Decidendi and Final Decision.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for damaging houses, setting fire to a house, and carrying away tin-sheets. The incident occurred in a village where the complainant and others were allotted plots for residential purposes, but the villagers protested against the unauthorized possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was contradictory and unreliable, and the prosecution witnesses failed to explain how they could identify the accused persons in the dark night.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the specific overt acts of each accused person in the commission of the alleged offences? 2. Whether the identification of the accused persons was reliable? 3. Whether the delay in lodging the report was explained by the prosecution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to assign specific overt acts to each accused person, and the evidence was omnibus and did not establish the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the alleged offences. 2. The court found that the identification of the accused persons was not reliable as the incident occurred in the dark night and there was no source of natural light. 3. The court held that the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the report, which raised suspicion in the correctness of the prosecution story.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellants of the offences charged.
JUDGMENT
1. - Appellants, namely, Khinwaram, Banwari, Dev Karan, Joogram, Guljhari, Shishram, Rohitash, Mohar Singh, Jeeram, Sundaram, Kehruram, Gurudayal, Rameshwar, Ramswrup, Harlal, & Maturam, have been convicted & sentenced as under:- | Each of the appellants | U/s 147, IPC - | 3 months RI. |
| -do- |
|
|
| except Ramswarup, Guljari & Banwari | U/s 436/149 IPC - | 8 month's RI. with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, 1 month RI.) |
| Three appellants, named above. | U/s 436, IPC - | -do- |
A case against the appellants had been registered on a typed complainant for the incident alleged to have taken place on 2-9-1981, involving 17 persons and the complainant was sent for investigation u/s 156 (3), Cr.P.C. to police station Singhana by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Khetri.
2. In the complainant, it had been alleged that in village Jaisinghsar, Khasra No. 67 was pasture land where plots were allotted to ten Harisans for residential purpose by the Tehsildar, Khetri in December, 1974 and the possession there of was also handed over to the allottees. However, the villagers of Jaisinghsar & Sarpanch Juglal made a complaint against the complainant (Hanumanaram) to the Tehsildar Khetri that the complainant & others were making unauthorised possession over the land bearing khasra No. 67 and they sought their removal from the land. It had been alleged that in the night of 2-8-81 at about 11 to 11 Oclock, 17 persons duly armed with lathis, axes, etc. and started damaging the house of Ved Prakash and then carried away tin-sheets after setting fire the house of Dharampal situated nearby the house of Ved Prakash. It has further alleged that the complainant & one Mungaram went to the police station on the same night on a tractor of one Krishan but none at the police station was prepared to record on the report.
3. First contention on behalf of the appellants before this Court was that the allegation against the appellants are vague in general as no specific overt act has been assigned to any of them and that apart, there is nothing on record to suggest as to which of he accused damaged the house and who had lit the fire and carried away tin-sheds inasmuch as the evidence being omnibus does not establish the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the allege offences. On the night of the incident that too in the mid at about 12 O' clock, admittedly there was darkness being darknight and that bring so, there was no source of light nor it was possible for the prosecution witnesses to have identified the accused persons therefore, it can be inferred that the appellants are being and have been falsely involved in the case mere on the assumption and suspicion created on account of rivalry in between the parties, Shri Sunda added. Shri Sunda urged that the matter of unlawful possession by the complainant and other persons on the pasture land was being protested by the accused appellants because they had unauthorisedly constructed the houses without any permission and, therefore, being prejudiced by their protest, they had rivalry between the parties which is the outcome of the registration of this false criminal case, whereas no offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant even on the evidence on record which has wrongly been appreciated and scanned by the trial Court and in this view of the matter, the prosecution being highly suspicion and doubtful, even if taken at its face value, no offence against the appellants is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned conviction on that basis is not sustainable.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that on the basis of the evidence on record, the lower court was justified in convicting the appellants.
5. I have considered the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor, and have carefully perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the house regarding which, t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
