IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the need for comprehensive appreciation of evidence and the limited scope for interference in acquittal judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. Both the instant appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 27.06.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.86/92 (State Vs. Hukma Ram & Anr.). Instant D.B. Criminal Appeal No.230/1992 has been preferred to challenge the said judgment to the extent of conviction of the accused-appellants; while the instant D.B. Criminal Appeal No.333/1994 has been preferred by the State against the same impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal of the accused-Hukma Ram herein.

1.2. The accused-appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.1992 :

Accused-appellant Hukma Ram :

Accused-appellant Shera Ram:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, vide the impugned judgment, accused-appellant Hukma Ram was acquitted of the charged offence under Section 302 IPC, while extending him the benefit of doubt. Accused-Shera Ram was not charged with the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the instant appeals are that on 15.03.1990, one Tilaram (complainant) lodged an FIR before the Reserve Centre (Aarakshi Kendra), Luni stating therein that on the said date, at about 11:30 a.m., while he alongwith his father Madaram were on their way to Village Mogda for getting certain goods/articles, at that time, accused-Shera Ram intercepted and stopped them, and told the complainant party that they have devised certain magic formula on the cows of the accused party, and in that connection, the accused party subjected the complainant party to beatings by infliction of fists blows; such criminal act was however stopped due to intervention and an act of rescue made by one Manglaram, at the relevant time.

2.1. Thereafter, the said Manglaram alongwith Madaram (complainant’s father) and accused-Shera Ram reached to a School to resolve the dispute through compromise, where one Keka Ram and Mangilal also came and they all mutually decided to go to a Temple. At that time, accused-Hukma Ram, who at the relevant time, was serving under the B.S.F. came there and started giving kick blows on the face of Madaram (complainant’s father), who, as a result whereof, became unconscious and his nose started bleeding. The said act was however, stopped due to intervention of Keka Ram, Mangla Ram and Mangilal, and Madaram (complainant’s father), who was in a state of unconsciousness, was taken and admitted in a Salawas Hospital.

2.2. As per the prosecution case, since complainant Tilaram was not present at the time when his father (Madaram) was subjected to the aforesaid treatment and he was informed of the same by Mangla Ram, the complainant thereafter immediately reached the hospital and found his father Madaram in the state of unconsciousness.

2.3. In connection with the above incident, complainant-Tilaram lodged an FIR before the concerned police station, which was registered for the offences under Sections 323 & 341 IPC, and the investigation accordingly commenced thereafter. However, during the course of investigation, injured Madaram (father of the complainant) was referred for treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, where while undergoing treatment, the complainant’s father Madaram died on 25.03.1990, and thus, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added, apart from the other aforementioned offences, against the accused-appellants. After investigation, the concerned investigating authority filed a charge-sheet against