Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ.
Inderjeet - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1985, 343 of 1985, 142 of 1987
Decided On : 10-02-2020
Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate, Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate, Javed Choudhary, Advocate, Santosh Kumar Jain, Advocate, Sarika Choudhary, Advocate, Tarun Jain, Advocate
Where two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - ACQUITTAL - EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN SENDING POST MORTEM REPORT - NO EXPLANATION - NO RECOVERY OF PELLETS - VISIT TO SPOT BY TRIAL COURT - NO CORROBORATION OF OCULAR VERSION - TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS - VIEW FAVOURING ACCUSED ADOPTED - ACQUITTAL UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Accused Hari was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that he had shot and killed Ganga during a village dispute. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the incident, but their testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence. The post-mortem report was sent to the police with a delay, and there was no explanation for this. The trial court visited the spot and found that the eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident from where they claimed to have been standing. The court also noted that there was no evidence linking the gun recovered from Hari to the crime. The trial court acquitted Hari, and the State appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court's acquittal of Hari was justified. The court noted that the eyewitness account was not corroborated by medical evidence, and that the trial court had visited the spot and found that the eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident from where they claimed to have been standing. The court also noted that there was no evidence linking the gun recovered from Hari to the crime. The court further held that, where two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness account was corroborated by medical evidence. 2. Whether the trial court erred in visiting the spot and finding that the eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident from where they claimed to have been standing. 3. Whether there was evidence linking the gun recovered from Hari to the crime. 4. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting Hari.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The eyewitness account was not corroborated by medical evidence. 2. The trial court did not err in visiting the spot and finding that the eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident from where they claimed to have been standing. 3. There was no evidence linking the gun recovered from Hari to the crime. 4. The trial court was justified in acquitting Hari.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the trial court's acquittal of Hari.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of common judgment/order dated 12.7.1985 passed by the trial court.
2. Prosecution story was set in motion on the basis of statement Exhibit-P/1 made by complainant before the police on 15.10.1979 at 10:15 AM. On the basis of statement Exhibit-P/1, a formal FIR Exhibit-P/57 bearing No. 80/1979 dated 15.10.1979 was registered at Police Station Khandar, Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 120-B, 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Chhotu Lal was resident of Village Allapur, Tehsil Khandar, Sawai Madhopur. There was an enmity between his party and party of Ram Ratan. Some litigation was also pending between them. About a year back, Bhanwar Lal and Ram Ratan had contested co- operative society elections against each other. Complainant party had supported Bhanwar Lal and due to this reason, Ram Ratan and his party members were unhappy with the complainant party. On 15.10.1979 at about 8:00 AM, Shriniwas Ex-Sarpanch was taking a bath at the Well. Hari, Madan and Raghunath apprehended him and inflicted injuries to him with sticks. Sriniwas was seriously injured. Then the said persons came to the village and at their instigation, Ram Swaroop, Ram Ratan, Babu, Moti son of Lohariya Berva, Girraj, Parasram, Nathu, Madroop, Moti Lal son of Amar Lal Jat, Teja, Punya, Ram Dayal, Kailash, Parasram son of Devi Ram Jat, Radhey Shyam, Moti Lal son of Nathu Lal Jat, Hukam Chand, Ghanshyam, Ram Prasad, Gangaram, Rambharosi, Ram Prasad, Jagdish, Ram Chand, Jailad, Onkar, Laddu son of Ram Chand, Bala, Ramswaroop son of Onkar, Laddu son of Govinda Jat and Birbal came to the spot. Accused were armed with guns and stones attacked the complainant party. As a result, Laddu Lal, Kanhaiya, Shankar, Bhagirath, Onkar, Bajranga, Ghisi, Raghunath, Latoor, Mooli, Kanhaiya son of Harbhutiya, Sriniwas, Chandrabhan and Surajmal suffered injuries.
4. Raghunath fired a shot from his gun which hit Laddu Mali son of Gangla Mali and Madroop fired a shot from his gun which hit Ganga wife of Bala Mali. Both Laddu Mali and Ganga died at the spot. Madroop fired from his gun at Kanhaiya and he suffered injuries at his feet. Inderjeet re-loaded the gun of Madroop and then Madroop again fired and inflicted injuries to the injured and injured suffered injuries. Injured were removed to the hospital for treatment.
5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against thirty-six persons namely Ramswaroop son of Amar Lal, Rathunath, Hari, Madroop, Inderjeet, Nathya, Laddu son of Ram Chandra, Birbal, Madan, Ram Prasad, Radhey Shyam, Punya, Girraj, Ghanshyam, Moti son of Nathu Jat, Parasram, Moti son of Amar Lal, Ramswaroop son of Onkar Berva, Teja, Ram Dayal, Kailash, Ram Chandra, Ram Kishan, Jagdish, Babu, Moti son of Lohariya Berva, Ram Prasad, Ram Bharosi, Balaram, Parasram son of Devi Ram, Ram Ratan, Hukm, Gangaram, Prahlad, Onkar son of Chhitar and Laddu son of Govind.
6. Charges were framed against the accused by the trial court as under:-
| Name of Accused | Charges framed U/s. |
| Raghunath, Hari | 147, 323/149, 325/149, 302, 323, 325, 307/149, 148 and 452 IPC |
| Madroop | 323, 325, 147, 148, 323/149, 302/149, 325/149 and 307 IPC |
| Inderjeet | 147, 148, 452, 323, 302/149, 325/149 and 307 IPC |
| Nathia | 147, 148, 452/149, 323/149, 302/149, 325 and 307/149 IPC |
| Laddu and Birbal | 147, 148, 452, 323, 302/149, 325 and 307/149 IPC |
| Madan | 323, 325, 147, 148, 452, 325/149, 323/149, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC |
| Laddu son of Govind, Onkar, Prahlad, Gangaram, Hukm, Ram Ratan, Parasram, Balaram, Ram Bharosi, Ram Prasad, Moti, Babu, Jagdish, Ram Kishan, Ram Chand, Kailash, Ram Dayal, Teja and Ramswaroop | 147, 148, 452, 323, 325/149, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC |
| Moti, Parasram, Moti son of Nathu |
