Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Mana Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:32827) on 23 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:32827]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 759/2008
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Mana Singh S/o Sajjan Singh B/c Jatsikh, R/o Sadbhawananagar,
Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
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 (Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32827] (2 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008] 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 313 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.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32827] (3 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008] 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 inconsistencies and contradictions, both in the oral testimonies and in the sequence of events alleged in the FIR vis-à-vis the evidence adduced during trial. The contradictions between the depositions of PW-2 Surendra Kumar and PW-8 Narendra with respect to the genesis of the incident, the alleged role of the (Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32827] (4 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008] accused, and the nature of the altercation cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story.
b. That the medical evidence on record does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries sustained by the complainants were of such a nature as to attract the ingredients of Section 307 or Section 326 IPC. In particular, the injury on Ved Prakash was neither proved to be grievous nor life-threatening, and the injury to Surendra Kumar, though resulting in a fracture, was not shown to have been inflicted with the requisite intent or knowledge to constitute a graver offence.
c. That the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence--i.e., the knife--and blood-stained clothes was procedurally flawed, lacking the presence of any independent or neutral witnesses, and thereby rendering the said recovery highly doubtful. The alleged recovery memo was signed only by police witnesses, which diminishes its evidentiary value.
d. That the FSL report merely confirms the presence of human blood but does not link it conclusively to either of the victims or the scene of occurrence. In the absence of matching DNA or corroborative forensic evidence, the probative value of the FSL report remains limited.
e. That the assertion regarding the accused being a habitual offender under Section 31 of the Arms Act was not supported by cogent evidence, as no certified copy of prior conviction or judicial record was exhibited or proved in accordance with law. (Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32827] (5 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008] f. That the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of robbery under Section 394 IPC, as there was no allegation or evidence of theft or forcible taking of property during the alleged incident.
g. That the accused, during trial, consistently maintained his innocence and no incriminating material was produced to substantiate the theory of premeditated assault or criminal intent. He was not found in possession of any weapon at the time of arrest, and no eyewitness account unequivocally established his role in the assault.
h. That the trial court, after an elaborate and careful evaluation of the entire body of evidence--both oral and documentary-- rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the more serious charges beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, recorded a well-reasoned acquittal for the same.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that no ground is made out for interference with the judgment of acquittal, and the appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed.
4. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and well-settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) reiterated the guiding principles governing such appeals. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment encapsulates the jurisprudential standards for interference in acquittal, inter alia, as follows: (Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32827] (6 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008]
(a) That appreciation of evidence must be holistic, not selective or partial.
(b) That if two plausible views emerge from the evidence, the one favouring the accused must ordinarily prevail.
(c) That a legally sustainable and reasoned acquittal should not be disturbed merely on the basis of a possible alternative view.
(d) That reversal of acquittal requires demonstration of perversity, illegality, or manifest error in appreciation of facts or law.
5. Upon careful scrutiny of the material on record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has meticulously evaluated the ocular and medical evidence and drawn a plausible conclusion consistent with settled legal principles. The court below found credible contradictions and exaggerations in the prosecution's case insofar as the more grievous charges were concerned. The nature and site of injuries, as supported by medical evidence, did not conclusively point to an intention to commit murder or cause grievous hurt as required under Sections 307 and 326 IPC.
6. The trial court further found the recovery of the knife to be circumspect in view of the procedural irregularities and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses. Likewise, the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of robbery under Section 394 IPC or habituality under the Arms Act.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned trial court is neither perverse nor contrary to law. It is a reasoned judgment passed after due appreciation of evidence. No illegality, perversity, or material irregularity has been demonstrated by the appellant- (Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32827] (7 of 7) [CRLA-759/2008] State so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the accused-respondent in relation to offences under Sections 307, 326, 394 IPC and Sections 4/25 and 31 of the Arms Act is hereby dismissed. The judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court dated 30.01.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganaganagar is affirmed.
(FARJAND ALI),J 90-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 10:12:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)