IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of error or misjudgment by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 08.06.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 130/1999 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Udai Lal & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 447 & 302 IPC and in alternative under Section 302/149 IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1998 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1999.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that an incident was reported on 07.11.1998 at about 5:45 PM at Nimri whereby the complainant Parasram reported that his father Khem Raj alongwith two labourer was cultivating an agricultural field. At that time, four residents of village Akodiya namely Udai Lal, Madhu Lal, Badri Lal and Nand Lal arrived at the location and attempted to divert a water drain to the fields belonging to the complainant’s father. When Khemraj opposed this action, the accused persons allegedly assailed the father of the complainant using various agricultural instruments including spade, Khodi (small hand-held sickles), Daranti (sickle) and Lath (wooden stick).

4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR No.189/1998 was registered and the investigation accordingly commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the four accused persons named in the FIR and the fifth accused Dhanraj under Sections 147, 148, 447 & 302 IPC, and the trial commenced accordingly.

5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 30 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and 02 documents were exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondents; whereafter, the accused- respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused respondents pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question.

6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents namely Udai Lal, Nand Lal, Dhanraj, Badri Lal and Madhu Lal, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 08.06.1999, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.

7. Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan, learned assisting counsel to Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG for the appellant-State submits that the complainant’s wife alongwith two labourer namely Nathu Lal and Goda were present at the site and witnessed the incident in question.

7.1 Learned counsel further submits that 16 prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial.

7.2 Learned counsel also submits that there were five injuries caused to the deceased i.e. on the jaw, ear, elbow, ribs and knee and the cause of death was attributed to three ribs puncturing the lungs, resulting in excessive bleeding.

7.3 Learned counsel further submits that the complainant's wife PW-12 Smt. Champa, an eyewitness, has clearly deposed the entire incident providing a detailed account of the events in question.

7.4 Learned counsel drew the Court’s attention to the statement rendered by the PW-12 Smt. Champa, in which she deposed that she was working with Khemraj, her father-in-law (the deceased), in the fields when an altercation occurred due to the accused persons attempting to divert a water drain, when this was opposed, they allegedly attacked her father-in-law Khemraj, causing his death.

7.5 Learned counsel, however, fairly submits that the FIR, which contains the complainant's version (who is the son of the deceased), did not mention any role or presence of the wife Smt. Champa (PW-12).

7.6 Learned counsel further submits that the chain of evidence is complete and there i