[2025:RJ-JD:33011-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 112/1999 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Rakama S/o Keshiya B/c Meena, R/o Manpura Khurd, PS Salamgarh, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit Mr. KS Kumpawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

28/07/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 31.07.1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.57/1997, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 12.08.1997, complainant Rangji gave an oral report at Police Station Salamgarh inter-alia alleging therein that on 12.08.1997 at about 4 AM in the morning, Ramchandra & Baliya came to the complainant's house and informed him that his brother Roopa was tied by the accused-respondent Rakma at his home. These two persons tried to rescue Roopa, but the accused- respondent did not release Roopa. The complainant narrated the whole story to his father. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused-respondent and saw Roopa in an injured condition, tied with a pole. The accused-respondent Rakma, Bagala & Rama were already present there. At that time, Roopa was alive and in an unconscious condition. On asking, the accused-respondent informed the complainant that his brother Roopa came in the night and suddenly attacked on the accused-respondent and therefore, he caught him and tied him, to the pole. The accused- respondent took his brother at home, where he died. It was alleged that Roopa died due to injuries caused by the accused-

respondent.

On the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the case against the accused-respondent for offence under Section 302 IPC and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed challan against the accused respondent for offence under Section 302 IPC.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused respondent, who denied the charge and sought trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses in support of its case. In defence, no evidence was produced.

The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he did not commit any offence. He was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 31.07.1998 acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence this appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused-respondent. Learned AAG has vehemently submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses in right perspective manner and hence committed grave and serious error of law in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence under Section 302 IPC. Counsel further submits that the witnesses PW-2 Rangaji, PW-3 Ramchandra, PW-4 Bagala, PW-6 Baliya, PW- 9, PW-11 have fully supported the prosecution case, but he learned trial court discarded the evidence of these witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that as per the evidence of Doctor PW-12 Dr. Omprakash, who examined the deceased Roopa, deceased sustained total 16 injuries and the cause of death was excessive bleeding and shock. The learned trial court again did not consider this