1. Acquittal appeal against Session Court's discharge for murder under Section 302/34 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish S/o Lakhma Baranda – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajesh Bhati
For the Respondents: Rohin Bhansali, Mohd. Aman, Anushka Jain
For the Appellant : Rajesh Bhati
For the Respondents: Rohin Bhansali, Mohd. Aman, Anushka Jain
An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court's view is a possible one based on evidence, unless the judgment is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or based on a misreading of material evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(iii) & (i) - Appeal against acquittal - Evidence of hostile witnesses - Recovery of weapons without independent corroboration - Medical evidence proving homicidal death but failing to establish the identity of the perpetrator - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. (Para 38)
(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court can interfere only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or if the order is clearly unreasonable. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, it cannot be overturned merely because another view was possible. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of accused individuals charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted three family members with lathis, resulting in death. The primary eyewitnesses turned hostile during the trial. Recovery of weapons was not supported by independent witnesses, and while medical reports confirmed the deaths were homicidal, no direct link was established between the accused and the crime.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the principal eyewitnesses resiled from their previous statements and were declared hostile. The remaining witnesses provided hearsay evidence. The recovery of alleged weapons lacked independent corroboration, and forensic evidence was inconclusive as blood groups of the victims and accused were not matched. Although the deaths were violent and homicidal, the link between the accused and the commission of the offense was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence and whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Benefit of doubt must go to the accused if two views are possible. In an appeal against acquittal, the higher court should not substitute its view for that of the trial court unless the lower court's decision is perverse or clearly unreasonable. Since the trial court's view was a possible one based on the evidence, the acquittal cannot be overturned.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. State argues trial court overlooked evidence. Respondents support acquittal based on lack of cogent proof. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Principal eyewitnesses turned hostile. Medical evidence confirmed homicidal death but lacked linkage to accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. If two reasonable conclusions possible, appellate court should not disturb acquittal unless perverse. (Para 37 , 38 )
5. Appeal dismissed; impugned acquittal judgment upheld. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
6. What is the standard for appellate interference in acquittal appeals?
The appellate court cannot overturn acquittal if the trial court's view is a possible view, unless the judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence. (Para 37 , 38 )
7. Can a conviction be based solely on recovery of weapons and medical evidence without establishing a link?
No. Without establishing the blood group of the deceased or accused, mere presence of human blood on recovered articles is insufficient to connect the accused with the crime. (Para 26 , 35 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a hostile witness's testimony?
Hostile witness testimony can be relied upon only to the extent it supports the prosecution case, but if it resiles from the earlier version, it loses substantive value. (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant–State under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the validity of judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 54/2017, arising out of FIR No. 40/2017 registered at Police Station Phalasiya, District Udaipur, whereby the accused-respondents, namely, – Jagdish and Govindram have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per prosecution case, on 08.04.2017 at about 8:00 a.m., the complainant Smt. Priyanka @ Sita Baranda submitted a written information (Ex.P-1) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Phalasiya, stating therein that she and her brother Subhash had gone to their respective schools in the morning, she to Sitradari School and her brother to Sigri School to appear in an examination. She stated that upon hearing shouting and noise from the direction of her house, she rushed back and saw that the accused-respondents, namely, Jagdish and Govindram were assaulting her Bhuwa Kamla, her grandfather Lakhma, and her grandmother Dhanki with lathis, and thereafter fled from the spot. She further stated that her brother Subhash also reached there and, upon seeing the injured persons lying at the spot, went to inform their Bhuwa Elasi, resident of Sada. When Elasi arrived, it was found that Lakhma and Kamla had succumbed to their injuries, while Dhanki was lying in a seriously injured condition.
3. On the basis of the said information, a formal FIR No. 40/2017 was registered at Police Station Phalasiya for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, District Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur for trial.
5. The learned Trial Court framed, read over, and explained the charges under Section 302/34 IPC to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited documentary evidence from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-61.
7. The statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution allegations, claimed false implication, and asserted their innocence. The accused-respondents did not lead any evidence in defence.
8. Learned Trial Court, Upon hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and after appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused- respondents of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.11.2022.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2022, the Appellant–State has preferred the present Appeal.
10. Hence the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant – state submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality and perversity in acquitting the accused–respondents of the charges levelled against them. The impugned judgment is contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant – state further submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as well as the facts and evidence available on record. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and has ignored material circumstances and corroborative pieces of evidence, which clearly establish the complicity of the accused-respondents. The learned court below, thus, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents.
