The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent witness testimonies to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhandari, J.)

1. The appellant – State has preferred the instant appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.1998 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar, whereby the accused respondents- Jagdish & Ramcharan have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 302, 447, 148, 147 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and accused respondents - Kishorilal, Danaram, Giriraj and Dholya have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 302/149 of IPC.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.07.1993 at about 12:15 am, complainant-Rang Lal (PW-4) lodged a written report (Exhibit-P1) at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Alwar. On the said report, the police registered FIR No.216/1993 on 31.07.1993 (Exhibit-P19). It was mentioned in the written report that younger brother of the complainant – Moharu Lal was a School Teacher. At about 1:30 pm on 30.07.1993, he was returning from the school, son of younger brother – Harkesh came to his farm and told him that Jagdish, Ramcharan, Kishori, Dholya, Danaram and Giriraj were beating his father. He also mentioned that Jagdish had given a blow of pharsi on the head of his father and others were beating with lathis. It was further mentioned in the report that there was some dispute with regard to the right of passage. Jagdish denied access to Moharu Lal, on which, Moharu Lal said that this passage was very old and being used by the villagers, on which, the dispute started. The police, after due investigation, filed charge-sheet against Jagdish, Kishorilal, Danaram, Giriraj and Dholya for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 447, 149 of IPC. After hearing the charge arguments, charges were framed against the accused respondents. At the stage of prosecution evidence, after statements of 8 witnesses were recorded, an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading Ramcharan as an accused. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, however, in the revision, the High Court directed to proceed against accused Ramcharan. Accused - Ramcharan surrendered before the Court on 28.02.1998. Witnesses were re-examined. As many as 22 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The explanation of the accused-respondents was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In defence, 1 witness was examined and 6 documents were exhibited. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments from both the sides, has acquitted all the accused-respondents from all the charges.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, accused respondent No.1 – Jagdish and respondent No.4 – Giriraj had expired and therefore, the appeal was abated against respondent Nos.1 and 4 – Jagdish and Giriraj and same now survives only against accused respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6.

4. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the statement of eye-witnesses - Harkesh (PW-1), Brahma Devi (PW2), Pooran (PW-6) and Dev Karan (PW-7). It is also contended that Bhoti (PW-3), wife of the deceased, was also an eye-witness. Their testimony is trustworthy and the same matches with the medical evidence. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is argued that the police station was far away from the village and the place where the incident took place. The Court also did not consider the fact that the complainant had informed the police via mobile phone.

5. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has not placed reliance on the FSL Report wherein, human blood was said to be detected on the pharsi as well as on the clothes of the deceased. It is also contended that the Court below has n