Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Munnuri Laxman, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Hujiya And Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 456/1998
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 341 & 323/34 - Acquittal of accused-respondents in a murder case - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents despite medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case, leading to an appeal by the State - Eyewitness testimonies were found contradictory and unreliable, raising doubts about the prosecution's narrative - The Court emphasized the principle that the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that the appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or illegality. (Paras 17-20)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court's role is limited to ensuring that the trial court's decision is not perverse or illegal, and it cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court. (Paras 18-20)
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 28.08.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.127/95 whereby the accused-respondent Kabiya was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 302, 341 & 323/34 IPC and accused-respondents Hunjiya and Kalu were acquitted under Sections 302/34, 323 & 341 IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.
3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 08.12.1994 at around 7:45 p.m., Hariyaram (PW-1 complainant), submitted an oral report (Ex.P.-1) at Police Station, Kotda. As per the said report, when the complainant returned to his house at Nichli Subri, his brother Saka (PW-3) informed him that on the said day, the accused-respondents, at around 5:00 p.m. came from the side of Kotda and tried to take away the cows of Kuka (PW-13). Thereupon, Kuka started shouting, and on hearing the same, Saka reached the spot and intervened the said act of the accused-respondents. In course of the same, Saka was caught hold of by accused-respondent Hujiya and an injury on the forehead of PW.3 was caused by accused-Kalu using a stone.
4. Thereafter, Bhaga (deceased-who was uncle of PW.3), Bhojiya PW.6 (elder son of deceased), Bhima PW.10 (younger son of deceased) and Vaja PW. 11, reached the place of incident and intervened, whereupon accused-respondent Kabiya stabbed Bhaga in the chest with a ‘churi’ (Knife) and fled from the spot; Bhaga (deceased) tried to chase Kabiya, in course whereof, Bhaga fell down and succumbed to the injuries.
5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR No. 124/94 at Police Station, Kotda was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323 & 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
6. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Kabiya under Sections 302, 341 and 323/34, and against accused-respondent Hujiya and Kalu under Sections 302/34, 323 and 341 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and got exhibited 22 exhibits in support of their case; whereas the defence examined 1 witness in support of its case, whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the said criminal case in question.
8. 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, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.08.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State.
9. Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGA, appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondents despite there being a clear medical evidence, including the postmortem report, which supports the prosecution’s case, in the manner that the injury caused to the deceased was ante-mortem and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death in question.
9.1. Learned counsel further submitted that in their testimonies, the eyewitnesses, namely, Saka PW.3, Bhoja PW.6 and Bhima PW.10 have completely supported the prosecution case and that their testimonies have been corroborated by PW.12 Dr. O.P. Mahatma; but the same have been discarded by the learned Trial Court on the basis of minor contradictions, which were bound to arise in the given circumstances; furthermore, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to the
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
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 appellate court must demonstrate clear error or illegality to overturn an acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the accused's guilt.
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 cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
The judgment establishes that an appellate court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court misreads or omits material evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof require that the prosecution must establish intent and sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
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
