Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Madan S/o Shri Kalyan and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2005
Decided On : 04-05-2017

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka and Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishiraj Singh, Public Prosecutor

In the absence of reliable and trustworthy prosecution evidence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and cannot be convicted.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - CONVICTION - ASSAULT - SECTION 326, 325, 324, 323, 149 IPC - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - HOSTILE - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - ABSENT - WEAPONS OF OFFENCE - NOT PRODUCED - INJURIES - CONTRADICTION - INVESTIGATING OFFICER - NOT EXAMINED - ENMITY BETWEEN PARTIES - ADMITTED - CROSS CASE - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT - BENEFIT TO COMPLAINANT SIDE - RELIABILITY OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE - DOUBTFUL - CONVICTION QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:

Accused petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, and 149 IPC for assaulting the complainant and his brother. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the complainant, his brothers, and a medical report. However, during the trial, some witnesses turned hostile, and others were not examined. The weapons of offense were not produced, and there were contradictions in the evidence regarding the nature of injuries and the weapons used.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution evidence was not trustworthy and reliable due to the following reasons: (i) some witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story; (ii) independent witnesses were not examined; (iii) the weapons of offense were not produced; (iv) there were contradictions in the evidence regarding the nature of injuries and the weapons used; (v) the investigating officer was not examined; and (vi) there was admitted enmity between the parties, and the complainant side had received the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act in a cross case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the trial court and the appellate court erred in convicting the accused petitioners based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the following legal principles: (i) in the absence of corroboration to a material extent in all material particulars, it is extremely hazardous to convict the accused persons on the basis of the testimony of highly interested, inimical, and partisan witnesses; (ii) when the prosecution evidence is unreliable and contradictory, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision petition and quashed the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court in regard to the accused petitioners. The accused petitioners were acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioners Madan and Raju @ Chhoga against the judgment dated 11.2.2005 passed by learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Kota in criminal appeal No.114/03 whereby learned lower appellate Court has upheld the conviction for the offences under Sections 326/149, 325, 325/149, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 I.P.C.

2. Earlier, learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2003 has convicted the accused persons as follows :-

Name of Accused

Section

Sentence

Kalu @ Kalar

326 IPC

3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Ramlal

326/149 IPC

3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Madan

326/149 IPC

3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Kanhaiyalal

326/149 IPC

3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Raju @ Chhoga

326/149 IPC

3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Ramlal

325 IPC 2

years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.

Kalu @ Kalar

325/149 IPC

2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.

Madan

325/149 IPC

2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.

Kanhaiyalal

325/149 IPC

2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.

Raju @ Chhoga

325/149 IPC

2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.

Kalu @ Kalar

324 IPC

1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.

Madan

324 IPC

1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.

Ramlal

324/149 IPC

1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.

Kanhaiyalal

324/149 IPC

1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.

Raju @ Chhoga

324/149 IPC

1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.

Ramlal

323 IPC

1 month simple imprisonment.

Kanhaiyalal

323 IPC

1 month simple imprisonment.

Raju @ Chhoga

323 IPC

1 month simple imprisonment.

Kalu @ Kalar

323/149 IPC

1 month simple imprisonment.

Madan

323/149 IPC

1 month simple imprisonment.

All Accused

148 IPC

6 months simple imprisonment

3. Learned appellate Court reduced the sentence awarded by the learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Name of Accused	Section	Sentence
Kalu @ Kalar	326 IPC	3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Ramlal	326/149 IPC	3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Madan	326/149 IPC	3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Kanhaiyalal	326/149 IPC	3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Raju @ Chhoga	326/149 IPC	3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Ramlal	325 IPC 2	years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.
Kalu @ Kalar	325/149 IPC	2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.
Madan	325/149 IPC	2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.
Kanhaiyalal	325/149 IPC	2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.
Raju @ Chhoga	325/149 IPC	2 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment additionally.
Kalu @ Kalar	324 IPC	1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.
Madan	324 IPC	1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.
Ramlal	324/149 IPC	1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.
Kanhaiyalal	324/149 IPC	1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment additionally.
Raju @ Chhoga	324/149 IPC	1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment additionally.
Ramlal	323 IPC	1 month simple imprisonment.
Kanhaiyalal	323 IPC	1 month simple imprisonment.
Raju @ Chhoga	323 IPC	1 month simple imprisonment.
Kalu @ Kalar	323/149 IPC	1 month simple imprisonment.
Madan	323/149 IPC	1 month simple imprisonment.
All Accused	148 IPC	6 months simple imprisonment

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCHDeepak Maheshwari, J.Madan S/o Shri Kalyan and another - PetitionersVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2005Decided On : 04-05-2017

In the absence of reliable and trustworthy prosecution evidence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and cannot be convicted.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Madan S/o Shri Kalyan and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2005
Decided On : 04-05-2017