The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the accused's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State assailing the judgment dated 10.01.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, in Sessions Case No.180/87, whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them.

1.1. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced a report dated 06.08.2025, submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, regarding the present status of the accused persons named in the FIR. As per the said report, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the accused-respondents, namely Uda s/o Bagtadar Gurjar, have passed away. The aforesaid report is taken on record. Accordingly, the present adjudication is being confined to the surviving accused-respondents, namely, Nanu, Bheru, Kajod, Ladu, Gheesa, Sitaram, Ugma, and Rameshwar.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1987 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1992.

3. Brief facts of the case, as presented before this Court by Mr.Ramesh Dewasi learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 16.09.1987 at around 8:30 p.m., one Shravan gave a verbal information at Police Station Bigod, to the effect that Smt. Shanti w/o Ganga, was assaulted by accused Bheru, Gheesa, Nanu, and Ugma, who pelted stones at her, abused, and beat her while she was returning from her field in the evening of the same day. On reporting the incident at home, Goru along with Shravan approached the accused persons to question them, whereupon Nanu, Bheru, and Ugma, were present. Soon thereafter, accused persons, namely Rameshwar, Bheru, Sitaram, Nanu, Ugma, Nanda, Kajod, Gheesa, Ladu, and Uda, armed with lathis and kulhadis, with an intention to kill attacked them. Accused Gheesa inflicted a lathi blow on the complainant- Shravan’s head, following which he fell down, thereafter, all the accused persons attacked Goru and dragged him inside Nanda ki Gubadi.

3.1. It was further stated that at the spot, witnesses Jeetu and Pokhar attempted to intervene. Complainant-Shravan escaped and ran towards the police station to inform about the said incident. On intimation, Head Constable Mohanlal and L.C. Harishankar reached the scene with others namely, Deva, Bheru, Bheru s/o Bhoja, Jeetu, and Omkar and found Goru lying injured, bleeding from the head, and demanding water, while accused Nanda and his sons Ladu and Gheesa were present. Mohanlal, Head Constable, recorded the statement of the injured Goru (Ex.P.4) after seeing Goru’s condition. Thereafter, Goru was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries en route.

3.2. Investigation was thereafter set in motion, pursuant to which the accused-respondents were apprehended, and recoveries were effected at their instance.

3.3. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents and charges were framed against accused Bheru under Sections 148 , 323, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC , and against the remaining accused persons under Sections 147 , 323, 302/149 and 323/149 . The accused-respondents denied the same and claimed trial, whereupon the trial commenced.

3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 20 witnesses and 46 documentary exhibits for examination, while in defence, 1 witness was produced and 5 documents were exhibited. The accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused-respondents Gheesa and Ladu stated that deceased Goru had attacked their father, causing injuries to him. They asserted their innocence and alleged false implication in the present case.

3.5. Upon hearing the contentions of both the parties and considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents giving them the benefit of doubt, vide the impugned judgment dated 10.01.1991, against whic