[2025:RJ-JD:52912]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 373/1998 State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus

1. Bhanwar Singh S/o Unkar Singh

2. Maukham Singh S/o Onkar Singh

3. Ram Singh S/o Onkar Singh 4. Roop Singh S/o Onkar Singh 5. Arjun Singh S/o Vijay Singh 6. Gopal Singh S/o Mod Singh 7. Bheru Singh S/o Udai Singh

8. Shyam Singh S/o Bhawani Singh

9. Bheru S/o Hokma

10. Champa Lal S/o Bheru Lal All R/o Manji Ka Guda, PS Bhadesar, Nimbahera District Chittorgarh.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati Mr. Ravindra Bhati, AGA For Respondent(s) : Mr. Doongar Dan Charan, Amicus Curiae HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

05/12/2025

1. The present criminal appeal emanates from the judgment dated 24.09.1997 rendered by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge Nimbhera, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.53/1995, whereby the accused-respondents namely, Bhanwar Singh, Maukham Singh, Ram Singh, Roop Singh, Arjun Singh, Gopal Singh, Bheru Singh, Shyam Singh, Bheru and Champa Lal were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said verdict of acquittal, the State of Rajasthan has instituted the instant appeal.

2. Leave to appeal was granted in the year 1998, and the matter has remained pending on the docket of this Court for an inordinate length of time. It is further noted that for several years, there has been no effective representation on behalf of the accused-respondents. In these circumstances, the Court appointed Shri Doongar Dan Charan, Advocate, who is present before the Court, as Amicus Curiae to represent the accused-respondents and to assist the Court in the adjudication of this long-pending matter. The learned Amicus curiae accepted the assignment with readiness. Adequate time was granted to him to scrutinise the case record within the courtroom. Thereafter, the Court heard elaborate submissions from both sides and undertook a comprehensive re-examination of the entire record.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution had charged the respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, and 307 IPC in relation to an incident allegedly occurring on 11.08.1995. The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement given by PW-6 Kanchani. Upon completion of investigation, charges were framed, and the matter proceeded to trial.

3.2. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced 41 documents to support its case whereas 4 witnesses and 4 documents have been exhibited by the defence.. The accused, in their examination under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations in toto, asserted false implication, and produced four defence witnesses besides several documents in support of their plea.

3.3. A meticulous reading of the impugned judgment particularly paragraphs No.8 to 25 reveals that the trial court undertook a scrupulous and holistic evaluation of all oral and documentary evidence. The learned Judge exhaustively considered:

a. the previous animosity between the parties;

b. the defence plea of false implication;

c. the failure of the prosecution witnesses to support the prosecution on material and core aspects of the incident;

d. the absence of reliable evidence regarding alleged recovery of weapons; and e. Various contradictions, inconsistencies, and embellishments that cumulatively eroded the credibility of the prosecution narrative.

3.4. The defence evidence was also duly appreciated. The trial court’s discussion regarding the plausibility of false implication and the likelihood that the accused had no involvement in the alleged occurrence is reasoned, lucid, and firmly rooted in the evidentiary record. Ultimately, the learned Judge extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused-respondents.

3.5. Upon an independent, circumspect, and holistic reappraisal of the entire