Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Bhanwar Singh, S/o. Ujjain Singh - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2001
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - The court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence and motive, and the principle that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the murder of Jhabar Ram, where the prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, but the trial court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was justified due to the lack of credible evidence, motive, and the presence of reasonable doubt regarding the eyewitness testimonies.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and emphasized the principle that the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laying challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2001, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Churu in Sessions Case No.23/1998, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred on 04.02.1998 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2001.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that in the village Bhuwadi, there was a roadways bus which was coming every day took halt at night. The Driver of the bus namely Bhanwar Singh (respondent-accused), who is the resident of Bangdu stayed in the village at the residence of one Mangtu along with the conductor of the Bus. The complainant alleged that one month before the complaint on the day of Makar Sakranti, a dispute occurred between Santro Devi W/o Om Singh, resident of their village and his brother Jhabar Ram with the respondent-accused regarding fare for which respondent-accused was pressurizing them. Respondent-accused kept animosity with deceased Jhabar Ram for contesting the fare along with Santro Devi. At 9:00 p.m. on 04.02.1998, one Shri Ram Singh along with his brother Shri Pema Ram and his cousin brother Shri Bajrang Lal were sitting together, when they heard some noise coming from the house of Mangtu to which they rushed there and found that their brother Jhabar Ram (deceased) was crying and shouting for help. When they went near him, they saw that respondent-accused was hitting Jhabar Singh with lathi and consistently inflicting injuries upon him. All three of them got in between and released Jhabar Ram from the clutch of Bhanwar Singh, who subsequently ran away from the spot towards the house of Mangtu. They took the injured Jhabar Ram to the Rajgarh Hospital where at about 4:00 a.m. where he succumbed to the injuries.
4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR (FIR No.38/1998) was lodged on an oral report given by complainant Ram Singh at 5.30 a.m. on 05.02.1998 before P.S. RAC, Rajgarh (the said complainant Ram Singh was later on examined as PW-4). After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial commenced accordingly.
5. During the course of trial, the evidence of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 22 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and 3 documents were exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondent; whereafter, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-respondent pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question.
6. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondent, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2001, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.
7. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General submits that allegations are well supported by three eye witnesses namely Pema Ram (PW-3), Ram Singh (PW-4) and Bajrang Lal (PW-5) and also by the FSL report and thus, it is a clear case where the learned trial Court has committed error in acquitting the respondent-accused. He further submits that as per the postmortem report four injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death and the same are directly attributed to the respondent-accused.
7.1 Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General also submits that the FSL report indicated that there were blood stains on the clothes of the respondent-ac
The presumption of innocence remains until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal without clear evidence of error or illegality in the trial c....
The judgment reinforces the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is clear evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
The judgment reinforces that an acquittal can only be overturned if the appellate court finds a clear error in the trial court's assessment of evidence.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment reinforces that an acquittal can only be overturned if the appellate court finds clear evidence of error or illegality in the trial court's decision.
The appellate court must demonstrate clear error or illegality to overturn an acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
