In criminal cases, an appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if it finds a clear error in the trial court's evaluation of evidence, not based on potential alternative views.

Judgment :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment dated 20.09.1996 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.105/1990 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Kishan Singh & Ors.), whereby, accused-respondents - No.1-Kishan Singh, No.2- Devi Singh & No.4-Ladkanwar were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 148 , 302, 302/149 & 323 IPC; accused respondent No.3-Narwar Singh was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 148 , 302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302 /149 IPC; though accused-Narwar Singh was convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the appellant-State has challenged the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1996 only to the extent of acquittal part thereof.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998.

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State, are that on 09.08.1990, one Manohar Singh (complainant and P.W.2) gave an oral information to the S.H.O., Police Station, Badi Sadari, alleging therein that on the said date, at around 9:00 p.m., when, after grazing his ox, he returned to the village, accused-Narwar, intercepted and asked as to how the complainant was instrumental in getting the said accused’s liquor seized; at that time, accused-Devi Singh, accused-Kishan’s wife, Devi Singh’s wife, whose name the complainant did not remember, also reached there. As alleged, they all attacked the complainant, and inflicted lathi blow on his hand, and stone blow on head. The said act was intervened by Kesar Singh, Sangram Singh & his wife, Kailash Singh, and other persons.

2.1. The complainant stated that there was no previous enmity between the parties, and the said attack was due to apprehension on the part of the accused persons, that the complainant was involved in the exercise of seizure of the accused’s liquor.

2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered under Sections 147 , 149 & 323 IPC, and the investigation started accordingly. In the said incident, as per the prosecution, one Kalyan Singh got injured and became unconscious, and thus, was admitted in the Udaipur General Hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302 & 323 IPC; after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge, the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly.

2.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 22 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 27) got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, witnesses D.W. 1 was produced and documents (Ex.D.1 to D.3) were exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question.

2.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, passed the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1996, as above, and against the acquittal part thereof, the appellant-State preferred appeal before this Court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that Manohar Singh (P.W.2), Complainant, in his testimony while narrating the incident that occurred on 09.08.1990, stated that when he returned form his well after grazing his ox, and was tethering the ox at his house, accused-re