The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration between witness testimony and medical evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Mohanlal @ Mohan Ram for assailing the Judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case No.4/2016 (23/2016) whereby, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 447, 427, 302/34 and 120B IPC and the respondents Nos.4 and 5 were acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 302/120B and 216 IPC.

2. at the outset, it may be noted that vide order dated 18.10.2021, the appellant's counsel was asked to address the Court on the issue as to whether the appellant can be treated to be the victim of this case. Shri Kumbhat, learned counsel representing the appellant, frankly conceded that Shri Mohanlal is not connected in any manner with the family of the deceased Champaram. He further submitted that the appellant Mohanlal has passed away and despite all efforts, no one from the family of the deceased Champaram has stepped forward to prosecute this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. Despite that, we have considered the matter on merits.

3. The FIR No.97/2015 came to be lodged by the appellant Mohanlal with an allegation that the respondents accused accosted and surrounded Champaram on 08.08.2015 and started beating him indiscriminately by lathis due to which, Champaram fell down unconscious. The accused then drove an unnumbered Bolero Camper over Champaram and crushed him under. Champaram got seriously injured. He was taken to the Osian Hospital from where, he was referred to Jodhpur Hospital but expired on the way. after registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents Nos.2 to 5 for the offences mentioned above. The case was committed for trial to the additional Sessions Sessions, Jodhpur District. Charges were framed against the accused respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents to prove its case. The accused denied the allegations of the prosecution in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., claimed to be innocent and examined one witness in defence.

4. after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and, appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court held that the theory put-forth in the evidence of the three so-called eye-witnesses i.e. the appellant Mohanlal (PW-1), Pancharam (PW-2) and Omprakash (PW-3) that the respondents herein, initially assaulted Champaram by lathis and gave him indiscriminate blows thereof and thereafter, the Bolero camper was driven over Champaram, was not corroborated by the Medical Jurist Dr. Rajesh Vishnoi (PW-8) who, while deposing on oath, did not state that any crush injury was noticed on the body of the deceased when the postmortem was conducted. In cross-examination, the doctor categorically admitted that the injuries on the body of Champaram could be the result of a collision with a running vehicle. all the three eye-witnesses, referred to supra, stated that the accused respondents, rained lathi blows on the body of Champaram for a duration of about 15 minutes and thereafter, the Bolero Camper was driven over and the victim was dragged along with the vehicle. However, neither any abrasions were noticed by the doctor on the dead body nor did the theory of vehicle being driven over Champaram find corroboration from the testimony of the Medical Jurist inasmuch as, no crush injuries were noticed on the dead body of Champaram.

5. In view of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm opinion that the appreciation of evidence undertaken by the trial court and the conclusions drawn while recording acquittal of the respondents does not suffer from any infirmity on facts and in law. Thus, there are no justifiable or valid grounds so as to interfere in the impugned Judg