The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of their acquittal.

Judgment

Reserved on : 05/05 /2025

Pronounced on : 19 /05/2025

(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeal came to be filed by the appellant under Section 378 /(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C . against the judgment dated 16.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Criminal Case No.137/2001 whereby all four accused respondents, charged under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 326, 326/149, 341 and 341/149 of the IPC , were acquitted.

2. This Court vide its order dated 28.04.2003 granted leave to appeal and the memo of leave to appeal was ordered to be treated as the memo of appeal.

3. From perusal of the order sheets of the present appeal, it is noted that respondent No.5– Mahendra Singh expired on 13.06.2003 and accordingly, it was ordered that the appeal against the respondent No.5 stood abated. Similarly, the appeal against respondent No.2 – Lal Chand stood abated on account of his death and an order abating the appeal qua respondent No. 2 was passed on 05.07.2022.

4. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Subhash Chandra (PW-3), the deceased Prem Singh, and Jetha Ram (injured) (PW-2) were going on a scooter when the present respondents intercepted them, and the complainant Subhash Chandra, who was driving the scooter, was forced to stop. The respondents who were armed with knife and Gupti (knife with baton) started delivering severe blows to the back of Jetha Ram (PW-2).

5. Upon receiving such blows, Jetha Ram (PW-2) fell down from the scooter. Jetha Ram then got up and ran towards the Mother Child Welfare Hospital. The accused respondents subsequently inflicted sharp injuries on the back of Prem Singh (deceased) using the Gupti and knife. Thereafter, Prem Singh urged the complainant, Subhash, to drive the scooter quickly, fearing more severe attacks from the accused respondents. The complainant thereafter drove the scooter to nearby Petrol pump.

6. By that time, Prem Singh had become unconscious due to the severe blow he received on his back. He was then taken to the hospital by the complainant, along with some other individuals. The prosecution have produced five eyewitnesses in support of the incident that occurred on 15.03.2000. These five witnesses were PW-2 (injured) Jetha Ram, PW-3 (complainant) Subhash, PW-5 Pratap Singh, PW-8 Lokesh, and PW-9 Satendra Pal. In total, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents, while the defence examined one witness and exhibited four documents.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor, while challenging the order of acquittal had submitted that the learned trial Court committed serious illegality in acquitting the accused respondent and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the provisions of law and perverse to the material on record. It was argued there being an unlawful assembly, all the accused attacked the deceased with a common intention, resulting in grievous injuries to Prem Singh, who later succumbed to those injuries. Jetha Ram (PW-2) also sustained severe injuries.

8. It was further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that the complaint was supported by evidence of the eyewitnesses. It was further stated that the recovery of the weapons and the scooter used in the incident clearly connected the accused respondents with the offence. While arguing, heavy reliance was placed on the statement of PW-3, who lodged the FIR and also supported the entire scene of occurrence and therefore, his evidence was deemed more than sufficient to establish the guilt of accused. While relying on the post mortem report, it was argued that PW-6 and PW-7, who examined the deceased, clearly opined that the injuries were anti mortem and the injury No.1 inflicted on Prem Singh was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was further stated that injury No.4 inflicted on Jetha Ram was of a serious nature and therefore, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the c