IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.PC. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellants may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident occurred in the year 1993 and the present appeal is pending since the year 1996.

3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No.35/94 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwara Ram & Anr.), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:

4. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused-appellant No.1-Bhanwara Ram since already expired, therefore, the instant appeal qua him already stood abated, as reflected in the order dated 15.05.2024. Thus, now the present appeal survives only against accused-appellant No.2-Mst. Dhapa, and the arguments were heard only to the extent of the said surviving accused-appellant, and the adjudication in the instant appeal is being made accordingly.

5. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 18.04.1993, statement of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, who was admitted in Sri Dungargarh Government Hospital, was recorded by the police (P.S. Dungargarh), wherein she stated that one of her agricultural field was situated at Rohi Momasar in which she was living, in a Dhani, alongwith her husband and children.

5.1. As per the said statement, on the west and east sides of the said field, there situated the fields of accused-appellant Bhanwara Ram (now deceased), and on the western side field, the said accused-appellant (now deceased) was living in a Dhani. There was no way to reach the eastern side of the field, and thus, the accused-appellant (now deceased) wanted to approach his field forcefully, through the field of Mst. Bhanwari Devi.

5.2. It was further stated by Mst. Bhanwari Devi that on 18.04.1993 itself in the morning i.e. at around 11-12 o’clock, she, her husband Rewantram and Khetaram son of her brother-in-law (Devar-Jetha Ram) were at the Dhani of Mst. Bhanwari Devi. At that time, Gopiram son of the accused-appellant (now deceased) came on his camel-cart and started going through the field of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, which was objected to by her husband and Kheta Ram.

5.2.1. When the family member of Mst. Bhanwari Devi did not let him Gopiram go through their field, he climbed the nearby Teebada and called out to his family members.

4.2.1. On such calling, his (Gopiram’s) father i.e. accused-appellant (now deceased) who was having Jei, his mother and sister, who were also carrying Jei, reached the place (field of Mst.Bhanwari Devi).

5.2.2. On their arrival, the accused-appellant (now deceased) started abusing the complainant party. The accused-appellant (now deceased) inflicted a blow on the head of the husband of Mst. Bhanwari Devi with the use of Jei, due to which she fell on the ground; however, the accused-appellant (now deceased) and his son Gopiram continued to inflict blows. The said act, upon being intervened by the brother-in-law (Khetaram) of Mst. Bhanwari Devi, he was also subjected to beating by the family member(s) of the accused-appellant (now deceased); as a result of the said act, the complainant party sustained in