Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2706
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AVNEESH JHINGAN, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kailash S/o Ram Lal – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 1996
Decided On : 08-10-2025
For the Appellant : Vijay Singh Yadav
For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumar
The appellate court's review for acquittal emphasizes the presumption of innocence and requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with consideration of evidence variability.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 326, 34, 448 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378 and 313 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court's interference is limited; requires proving of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Criminal proceedings - Variations in testimony of prosecution witnesses impact credibility and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents by alleging their involvement in the death of the complainant's relative during a riotous encounter, with FIR registered under various IPC sections. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent witness testimonies and lack of concrete evidence. (Paras 18, 20)
Issues: The primary issues included the reliability of eyewitness accounts and whether the prosecution substantiated the charges against the accused. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and held that the acquittal reflects a plausible view that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence against the accused. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original acquittal. (Para 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's account of the incident. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments for prosecution and defense. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. eyewitness testimony and credibility issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. variations in witness accounts and incident location. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. implications of evidence on prosecution's case. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. defense rebuttal and prior incidents. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. evaluation of evidence and standards of proof. (Para 18) |
| 8. standards for overturning acquittal decisions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. affirmation of the trial court's judgment. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment dated 28.09.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetari, District Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.77/1987 whereby Kailash, Ami Lal and Ram Lal were acquitted.
2. During pendency of the appeal, Ram Lal S/o Kanhi Ram died and the appeal qua him was abated. The appeal now survives qua Kailash and Ami Lal S/o Ram Lal (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’).
3. The facts as per the prosecution are that on a complaint given on 08.08.1987 by Kailash S/o Leeladhar Khati (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), FIR No.53/1987 under Sections 302 , 326 read with Section 34 IPC and 448 was registered at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu. It was stated that on 08.08.1987 Ram Lal armed with lathi, Kailash S/o Ram Lal and Ami Lal sons of Ram Lal armed with barchi (sharp edged weapon) came outside the baithak (sitting place outside the house) and started beating the complainant, Babu Lal (for brevity ‘deceased’) and Ram Chandra. Kailash gave a barchi blow on the head of the complainant, thereafter, all three accused gave beating to Ram Chandra and deceased. On hue and cry of the ladies, PW-6 Chandra Bhan and PW-7 Raghu Veer came and intervened. The deceased died on reaching the hospital. The accused earlier in morning had beaten PW-10 Vinod (son of uncle of the complainant) at the shop of Leeladhar Khati.
3.1. After filing of the challan, charges were framed u/s 302 IPC , in the alternate u/s 302 read with Section 34 and 323, 324 & 325 , in the alternate 323 & 324 read with .
3.2. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and stated that the complainant party was the aggressor, had come to the house of PW-8 Ramchandra, inflicted injuries and the accused only defended themselves. The prosecution examined twenty four witnesses and exhibited twenty eight documents. In defence, four witnesses were examined and seventeen documents were exhibited. The trial court after considering the factual aspect and appreciating the evidence concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case to the hilt and giving benefit of doubt acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor argues that the eye witnesses PW-1 Kailash (complainant), PW-4 Santlal, PW-6 Chandra Bhan, PW-7 Raghu Veer and PW-19 Dadkali supported the case of the prosecution and in deposition narrated the incident in extenso. The contention is that the barchi, jaili (agriculture equipment), lathi and chain were recovered at the instance of accused and recovery was made in the presence of two witnesses. The postmortem report and injury report is relied upon to fortify the argument that the deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned judgment, contends that the scope of interference in the appeal against acquittal is limited. The argument is that there are variations in the testimony of prosecution witnesses with regard to the place of incidence, the weapons accused were armed with and in attributing the injuries.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. PW-8 Ramchandra (brother of the deceased) eye witness to the incident stated that Ram Lal inflicted injuries to the deceased with lathi and did not name the respondents. The witness was decl
