[2025:RJ-JD:38588-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 142/1998 Raghunath @ Raghuvir S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, by caste Teli, R/o Teli Bazar Dhan Mandi, District Udaipur.

----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

28/08/2025 BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 21.02.1998 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No.53/1997 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months’ SI.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that 01.06.1997, complainant-Daulatram gave a written report at Police Station Surajpol, Udaipur to the effect that at about 10 P.M. he heard a disturbance. Upon which, he arrived at the scene and observed that accused individuals- Raghu Teli, Rajesh, Hemu, Suresh, Madan and two or three other persons were assaulting his brother- Chhagan Lal. Thereafter, Vijay Singh and Ramesh Das tried to rescue his brother. Accused Raghu Teli, who was armed with knife, inflicted injuries to his brother, due to which his brother fell down and Vijay Singh and Ramesh Das took him at Government Hospital, Udaipur. During the treatment, his brother succumbed to injuries. Ramesh informed the complainant that at about 8.00 P.M. there was an altercation between deceased- Chhagan Lal and Rajesh while the former was travelling in his auto rickshaw.

On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR against the four accused persons and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant as well as three more accused for offence under Section 302 IPC.

Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323 and 302 IPC. He denied the charge and sought trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined.

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 21.02.1998 acquitted the other co-accused and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, has contended that complainant- Daulat Ram (PW/1) stated that the accused-appellant inflicted a knife injury on the chest of the deceased, while the other accused persons assaulted him. However, Vijay Singh (PW/2) in his testimony asserted that the accused-appellant was armed with a screwdriver and inflicted an injury with it. Similarly, Ramesh Das (PW/3) also deposed that the appellant caused the injury with a screwdriver, and Naresh (PW/4) reiterated the same version. The learned counsel has further submitted that the medical evidence on record contradicts these statements. Dr. Ashutosh Shrivastav (PW/18), who conducted the post-mortem examination, categorically stated that the deceased sustained a total of seven injuries, but none of them could have been caused by a screwdriver. Thus, except for the complainant, all other so-called eyewitnesses specifically alleged that the appellant inflicted a single blow with a screwdriver on the chest of the deceased; however, this claim stands contradicted by the medical expert. It has also been urg