[2025:RJ-JD:19335-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 705/2000 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Shambhu and Ors.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. RK Charan HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

22/04/2025

1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that leave to appeal may kindly be granted, appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned judgment dated 03.06.2000 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents may kindly be punished and sentenced for the offences charged-with.”

2. The appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 03.06.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.23/98 (43/97) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu and Ors.), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the offences under Sections

302 & 302/34 of IPC.

3. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1996 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2000.

4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that a report was made by one Jagdish on 15.11.1996 at about 09:00 A.M. at village Dhamottar, in which he narrated that in the morning, his father went to the home of Bhuwan and Shambhu to recover a certain amount that he had lent earlier. Upon the father's arrival, an altercation ensued and hearing the commotion, the complainant Jagdish and his brother Laxman rushed to Bhuwan's house and saw that Shambhu, Govind, Bhuwan, and his mother Parwati shouting at their father, while Kesarbai and Sankar were also present. The complainant's father was attempting to recover the money, but Parwati denied owing anything and when the argument escalated, Shambhu struck the complainant's father with a lodi (a stone used for crushing eatables to make chutney, etc.) in the stomach, causing him to fall down. Subsequently, Parwati joined the attack and hit one more stone on the stomach of the father of the complainant and his brother Laxman intervened to stop the assault.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was registered and the investigation accordingly commenced. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 302 & 302/34 of IPC against the accused persons, and the trial commenced accordingly. The naksha moka and panchnama were prepared, and a postmortem examination was conducted. The lodi (stone) was recovered and examined. The prosecution proceeded with charges under Section 302 against Parwati and Shambhu, and under Section 302 read with Section 34 against Govind and Bhuwan.

6. During the course of trial, the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 10 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused respondents pleaded innocence and alleged false implication in the criminal case in question, however, in support of their defence, one witness was examined.

7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted the accused persons, as above, vide the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.06.2000, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law, as there were four eye witnesses: Laxman (PW-2), Jagdish (PW-3), Sankar Lal (PW-5), and Kesarbai (PW-6). He further submits that four persons were charge-sheeted, though Parwati and Bhuwan have since expired.

8.1 Learned cou