Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Singh & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1995
Decided on : 17-10-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/34, 323/149 & 447 - Acquittal of accused-respondents in murder case - The trial court acquitted the accused on the basis of self-defense, which was deemed justified as the deceased had previously assaulted a victim, necessitating the accused's intervention - Eyewitness testimonies were found insufficient to attribute specific roles to the accused - The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in such cases. (Paras 8, 10, 14)
(B) Right of Private Defence - The court reiterated the principles governing the right of private defense, noting that it is available when one is confronted with imminent danger and must be proportionate to the threat faced. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the acquittal of several accused charged with the murder of Kishore Singh, who had previously assaulted Rana Singh, leading to the accused's intervention. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to convict the accused.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no error in the trial court's judgment, affirming the acquittal based on the right of private defense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the trial court's reliance on the right of private defense was justified, as the deceased posed a threat to Rana Singh, warranting the accused's actions.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. By way of the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment dated 28.06.1993 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.16/1991 (State of Rajasthan vs. Hanuman Singh & Ors.), whereby the accused-respondents herein have been acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/34, 323/149 & 447 IPC.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1991 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1995.
3. At the outset, attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, wherein it was recorded on the basis of a death certificate so produced, that accused-respondent Mohan Singh had passed away on 09.02.2018, and thus, vide the said order, the instant appeal qua the said accused-respondent Mohan Singh stood abated and dismissed as such. In this view of the matter, the present appeal is surviving only qua accused-respondents (surviving), namely, Hanuman Singh, Mangilal @ Mangoo Singh, Bajrang Singh, Takhat Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Tej Singh, Shankar Singh, Gaje Singh and Madan Singh, and the present adjudication is being made accordingly.
4. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Sameer Pareek, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-State; Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, appearing for the complainant side, are that on 06.01.1991 at around 4:30 p.m., one Bheem Singh (complainant/PW-3) submitted a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-5/30.09.1991) before the Police Station, Jhanwar, wherein it was stated that on the preceding night, he was in the fields at Gogaar, and as usual, his brother, namely, Kishore Singh was at Laata in his fields at Dhoorinadi.
4.1. It was further stated that on 06.01.1991, at around 9:00 a.m., when the complainant arrived at his house, his brother-Kishore Singh’s wife asked the complainant to reach at Laata in the field, to enquiry as to why so many persons were gathering thereat, whereupon the complainant did so. When the complainant reached the said field, he saw that his brother-Kishore Singh was standing near Jhoopi, and at a short distance, one Rana Singh s/o Ram Singh was being tied, and one Loon Singh and Gopal Singh, were asking as to why Rana Singh has been tied, and the same query was put by the complainant himself and asked his brother Kishore Singh to set the said Rana Singh free. Thereupon, Kishore Singh replied that the said Rana Singh in the night tried to set the Jhoopdi at fire, and therefore, after beating him, Kishore Singh tied Rana Singh, and asked that he would be set free only in the event of arrival of two Mukhiyaas of the Village, at the relevant time.
4.2. In such circumstances, as stated, the complainant went to the Village, narrated the whole incident to one Likham Singh s/o Khet Singh, and asked him to reach the aforesaid field, while telling him that in the meanwhile, the complainant would reach the said field alongwith the Sarpanchas, namely, Mohan Singh and Ratan Singh. Before the complainant and the said Likham Singh could do so, certain persons armed with weapons and lathis rushed towards the field of Kishore Singh with an intention to attack him. Thereupon, the complainant alongwith Likham Singh followed the above-said persons and reached the field, and saw that accused persons, namely, Bhanwar Singh, Tej Singh, Mangilal, Bajrang Singh, Shankar Singh, Mohan Singh, Gaje Singh, Takhat Singh, Hanuman Singh and Madan Singh reached the field prior to arrival of the complainant and Likham Singh, and gave beatings to the complainant’s brother Kishore Singh.
4.3. It was also stated that at the relevant time, accused persons namely, Bhanwar Singh and Tej Singh were armed with guns, Mangilal, Shankar Singh, Takhat Singh, Hanuman Singh and Mad
AI
The right of private defense is justified when imminent danger is present, and the response must be proportionate to the threat.
The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof require that the prosecution must establish intent and sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
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 appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds a clear error or illegality in the trial court's judgment.
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.
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 acquittal of the accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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.
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
