IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Dilip Aahari Meena S/o Sh. Deeta Aahari Meena - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 520/2017
Decided On : 30-06-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 302/34, 304 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2), 313, 437-A – Evidence Act, 1872– Section 27 – Punishment for wrongful restraint – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Attempt to murder – Offence for murder – Appeals from convictions – Power to examine the accused – Appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, District in Sessions Case – Held, Fact that initial report has been withheld significant delay of 36 hours in lodging of report Ex.P/1; the grave discrepancies in names of assailants as disclosed by four eyewitnesses, significant time gap regarding condition creates a great doubt in mind of the Court as to reliability of entire prosecution case – Consequently, Court are of opinion that it would not be safe to place reliance on such flimsy evidence of unreliable eyewitnesses and tainted investigation conducted by police so as to affirm conviction of appellants as recorded by trial court – Hence, impugned judgment does not stand to scrutiny and cannot be sustained – Same is thus, reversed and set aside –Appellants are acquitted of charges – Appellants and Shankar are on bail – Their bail bonds are discharged – Appellant Shankar was granted bail by this Court by order but was unable to furnish bail bonds on account of his indigent condition – He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not, wanted in any other case – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
By The Court : Per Mehta, J.
1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.03.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kherwada, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No.22/2016:-
| Offence under Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 3 months' Additional RI |
| 324 IPC | 3 Years’ SI | Rs.1,000/- | 1 Month’s Additional SI |
| 323 IPC | 1 Year’s SI | Rs.1,000/- | 1 Month’s Additional SI |
| 341 IPC | 1 Month’s SI | Rs.500/- | 5 Days’ SI |
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court.
3. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
4. Ramesh expired on 14.02.2014 as a result of the injuries and his dead body was subjected to postmortem by Dr. Akhilesh Sharma (PW.19) posted as medical jurist at Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur. He carried out autopsy taking note of four injuries on the body of the deceased which are described hereinbelow:-
(2) Stitched wound 5 cm long on middle part of the head with brownish scab.
(3) Bruise 5 cm x 1 cm on the abdomen.
(4) Swelling on the left elbow.
5. When the head injury was opened, extradural hematoma admeasuring 5 cm x 5 cm was seen between the skull bone and the brain
Accused's claim of self-defence not properly considered by the trial court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and violation of fair trial principles.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to establish the guilt of the accuse....
The importance of reliable evidence and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration in criminal cases, and the reasonableness of delayed recording of police statements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.