The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in acquittals, requiring clear demonstration of error in original findings.

Judgment

23/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been instituted by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378 (iii) and (i) CrPC, challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.08/2007, whereby the respondent–accused Mana Singh was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. However, the accused was acquitted of the graver charges under Sections 307 , 326, 394 IPC and Sections 4 /25 and 31 of the Arms Act .

2. The genesis of the case originates from a parcha bayan given by PW-2 Surendra Kumar on 25.08.2006 while undergoing treatment at the Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. He alleged that he and his father, Ved Prakash Bhambhu, were operating an egg cart near a local liquor shop (Desi Theka). At around 10:30 to 11:00 p.m., the accused Mana Singh, in an intoxicated condition, arrived and demanded an empty glass to consume liquor. Upon refusal, he allegedly inflicted a knife blow on the neck of Ved Prakash, causing profuse bleeding. When Surendra Kumar intervened, the accused also inflicted a knife injury on his finger. PW-8 Narendra attempted to mediate, following which the accused fled the scene on a motorcycle.

2.1. On the basis of the said statement, an FIR bearing No. 358/2006 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. During investigation, the accused was arrested, and a knife allegedly used in the incident was recovered from his possession. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 307 , 326, 324, 394 IPC and Sections 4 /25 and 31 of the Arms Act . 2.2. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments, framed charges accordingly. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced documentary evidence marked from Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-22. The accused, in his statement under Section 31 3 CrPC, denied the allegations but did not lead any defence evidence.

2.3. Upon completion of trial, the learned court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC only and sentenced him as aforesaid, while acquitting him of the remaining charges. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the State of Rajasthan has preferred in the instant appeal.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant–State assailed the acquittal as legally and factually flawed, advancing the following submissions:

a. The accused inflicted grievous injuries on vital body parts using a sharp-edged weapon, corroborated by the medical testimony of Dr. S.S. Batra (PW-7).

b. Dr. Rajeev Kaushik (PW-4) confirmed that Surendra Kumar sustained a fracture, attracting Section 326 IPC.

c. The injuries to Ved Prakash were potentially fatal, but for Surendra Kumar’s timely intervention, thereby justifying charges under Section 307 IPC.

d. The knife recovered from the accused and his blood-stained clothes tested positive for human blood, as confirmed by the FSL.

e. The recovered weapon, measuring 11.5 cm, qualifies as a prohibited weapon under the Home Department Notification dated

29.01.2000, attracting Section 4 /25 of the Arms Act .

f. The accused’s prior conviction under Section 4 /25 of the Arms Act established his status as a habitual offender.

3.2. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent–accused supported the judgment of acquittal and urged that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a reasoned and just conclusion. He advanced the following submissions in defence of the acquittal:

a. That the prosecution’s version was marred by significant inconsistencie