Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Raju @ Rajmal on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 128/1992
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Raju @ Rajmal S/o Rama B/C Gameti, R/o Dhunimata Ka God,
Dabok, Distt. Udaipur;
2. Mangu Khan S/o Kuda Bux Musalmen, R/o Near Jyoti Bhawan,
Dabok, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Rawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 13.09.2022
BY THE COURT :
This appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 23.09.1991 passed by the learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Case No.104/1990 whereby, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under Sections 397, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.03.1988, accused-respondent Raju @ Rajmal submitted an oral report (Ex.P/37) to the SHO, Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur alleging inter alia that he was employed at Hari Priya Petrol Pump (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (2 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] for filling fuel. The owner of the petrol pump was Manak Chand Agarwal; other persons, namely Devi Lal, Ram Chandra, Gopal Lal and Abhay Singh were also employed there. He (Rajmal) and Gopal Lal were deployed to fill fuel while others were assigned duties at the counter. In the evening, Ram Chandra had gone to his house after handing over accounts and proceeds of the day to Abhay Singh. At about 12:00 a.m., after filling fuel in some vehicles, he too, went to sleep. At around 2:00 a.m., Abhay Singh came to wake him up and asked him to fill fuel in a vehicle. When, he (Raju @ Rajmal) stepped outside the room he was suddenly surrounded by three persons, one of whom was carrying a knife in his hand. Two of the assailants went towards the counter area of the petrol pump, threatened Abhay Singh and obtained the keys of cash locker from him. They assaulted Abhay Singh and took him to a room situated in the backyard of the pump. Abhay Singh was brutally beaten up by them. He (Rajmal @ Raju) was also beaten by the assailants and was confined in another room after his hands and legs were tied using a plastic string and his mouth was gagged by a muffler. Thereafter, the assailants fled away from the spot in an unnumbered jeep. It was further stated by him that one of the assailant who had caught hold of him was Ratan Singh, a friend of Abhay Singh and that he could identify the other assailants also if they were brought before him. At around 4:00 a.m., a guy wearing turban came there to fill fuel in his vehicle. The said guy came inside and unbolted the door; then, he somehow managed to come out and informed the police. He (Rajmal) went to the room at the back of the gas station and saw (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (3 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] that dead body of Abhay Singh was lying there in a pool of blood. The blood smeared axle of truck was also lying there beside other belongings.
On the basis of the above report, an FIR No.34/1988 (Ex.P/38) came to be registered at Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 396 & 397 IPC and investigation was assigned to SHO Mr. Ramdev (P.W.28). The dead body of Abhay Singh was subjected to postmortem at the General Hospital, Udaipur. After five days of lodging of the FIR, the investigating agency found involvement of Raju @ Rajmal and one Mangu Khan in the crime. Thus, the respondents Raju @ Rajmal and Mangu Khan were arrested on 19.03.1988 & 20.03.1988 respectively for their alleged involvement in commission of crime. The statements of material witnesses were recorded. Both the accused-respondents made disclosure statements to the Investigating Officer. In furtherance of the information furnished by the accused named above, recoveries viz cash amounting to Rs.12,980/- (EX.P/1), a key and pair of trousers (Ex.P/5) were made from Raju @ Rajmal and recoveries of a blood smeared trousers, shoes (Ex.P/2) and 'Kunth' (Ex.P/13) as well as of a currency note of denomination of Rs.100/- and a copy (exercise book) were effected at the instance of accused Mangu Khan. Certain articles viz. axle, blood smeared mattress, quilt, blanket, bedsheet, pillow, muffler and rope were also seized from the crime scene and forwarded to the FSL for serological analysis for the (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (4 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] purpose of detection of blood etc. and report Ex.P/47 was prepared by the FSL.
After conducting thorough investigation, it was concluded that the first informant Raju @ Rajmal and Mangu Khan hatched a conspiracy for commission of robbery and murder of Abhay Singh. Thus, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused- respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 397 and 449 IPC. As the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur, where charges were framed against the accused persons after affording opportunity of hearing to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents to prove its case.
Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondents denied the same; claimed to be innocent and alleged that they had falsely been implicated in this case.
After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and the learned defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court held the respondents not guilty and thus, acquitted them vide impugned (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (5 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] judgment dated 23.09.1991 which has been assailed by the State in this appeal.
On behalf of the appellant-State, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached to an erroneous conclusion of acquitting the accused respondents. Indisputably, there was no eye-witness of the incident. He further submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence as produced by the prosecution was sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the accused-respondents. There is ample evidence available on record from which an undeniable inference can be drawn regarding involvement of accused-respondent Raju @ Rajmal in hatching the conspiracy for commission of crime with the other accused Mangu Khan. The learned trial Court disbelieved the strong circumstantial evidence led by prosecution though there was no such material on record to show that the accused- respondents were falsely implicated in this case. The evidence brought on record proves beyond shadows of reasonable doubt that the accused-respondents were the actual culprits who committed murder of Abhay Singh and robbery at the Petrol Pump. Thus, he prayed that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court may be reversed and the accused-respondents may be convicted for the offences they had committed and be punished adequately.
Per contra, learned counsel Mr. R.S. Rawal, appearing for the accused-respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (6 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances put forth against the accused-respondents were not fully established and were not forming a complete chain so as to draw an irresistible conclusion regarding guilt of the accused-respondents. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has dealt with the entire material produced before it and after meticulous examination of the evidence and while following cardinal principles governing the theory of circumstantial evidence, it has passed the impugned judgment which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to require interference by this Court.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the material available on record.
After anxious consideration of the material and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, our adjudication is as under:-
Indisputably, the eye-witness account of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to establish its case against the accused- respondents.
(i) Recovery of weapon 'Kunth' at the instance of accused Mangu Khan (Ex.P/13);
(ii) Recovery of a pair of pants (Trousers) (Ex.P/5) from accused-
Mangu Khan;
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM)
(7 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992]
(iii) Recovery of a notebook in which the name Noorjahan was inscribed on one of the pages (Ex.P/40) as alleged at the instance of accused Mangu;
(iv) Recovery of a currency note of denomination of Rs.100/- from Mangu which is marked as ExP/18;
(v) Recovery of currency notes of Rs.12980/- (Ex.P/ 4) allegedly at the instance of accused-Raju @ Rajmal;
(vi) Recoveries of a pair of pants (Trousers) & a key (Ex.P/5) from accused Raju @ Rajmal;
(vii) Accused Raju @ Rajmal and Mangu Khan, being friends and that they were seen together by Dhool Singh P.W.8 in the forenoon on the fateful day of the incident;
(viii) Motive that the accused Mangu Khan was having love affair with one Noorjahan whom he wanted to marry and for that purpose, he was in need of money;
(ix) Accused Mangu Khan was a friend of accused Raju @ Rajmal and so, both of them hatched a conspiracy to commit loot at the petrol pump.
Motive plays an important role in cases based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, first, we would like to discuss whether factum of motive has been established by way of producing convincing and clinching evidence. To prove the fact that the accused Mangu Khan was having love affair with one Noorjahan, the prosecution was expected to record the statement of some witnesses to show the existence of a relationship between them but unfortunately, no endeavor has been made in this regard, except the conjectural theory based on the so called (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (8 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] interrogation note. Neither any relative nor any neighbour of Noorjahan was made a witness. No oral or documentary evidence has been produced except recovery of a note book (Ex.P/40) in which, as per the story of prosecution, the name of Noorjahan was inscribed on one of the pages. The prosecution was lackadaisical in not establishing and furnishing information on the vital facts like:
(i) No effort has been made on the prosecution's end to establish the facts as to whom the notebook belongs to and who wrote the name over one of the pages thereof.
(ii) The prosecution undertook no exercise for comparison of handwriting of the accused person with the handwriting available in the recovered note book.
(iii) No material is available on record to establish the identity or whereabouts of the lady Noorjahan or to answer the question as to why she was not investigated.
(iv) Further, the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving that how Noorjahan was a beloved of accused Mangu Khan.
Suffice it to say that there is not even an iota of evidence on record, to establish the facts that the accused Mangu Khan was in love with one Noorjahan, he wanted to marry her and he was in need of money, except the conjectural theory put forth by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the motive which puts a significant dent in the story of the prosecution.
Now we come to another aspect that deserves to be noted, that is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a friendship or any other relationship between the accused Raju @ (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (9 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] Rajmal and Mangu Khan. An endeavor was made to prove this allegation through the evidence of Dhool Singh P.W.8 who stated that he had a tea shop near the Petrol Pump and he knew the accused Rajmal who was employed at the Pump. On 13.03.1988, he was at his shop till 8:00 p.m. He stated that in the afternoon accused Rajmal visited his shop for a cup of tea and on the very same day, accused Mangu Khan also visited his shop to have tea. It is deemed appropriate to reproduce the exact words spoken by this witness during trial, which are as under:-
"13-3-88 dks eSa gksVy ij FkkA jkf= ds vkB cts rd eSa nqdku ij FkkA fnu dks jktw esjh nqdku ij pk; ihus vk;k FkkA isVªksy iEi ij Hkh lkjs fnu pk; tkrh jgrh gSA ml fnu ekaxq [kka Hkh nqdku ij pk; ihus vk;k FkkA eSa gksVy ij gh jgrk gwaA lqcg lkr cts eSaus nqdku [kksyh Fkh o eSa 5&6 cts tx pqdk Fkk fQj txk rc eSaus gYyk xqYyk lquk Fkk fd vHk;flag dks ekj fn;k gSA"
Nowhere in the statement of Dhool Singh P.W.8 did he state that both the accused persons came together, they were talking to each other, sitting together or ever before the day of incident, they had come together or were seen together. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, no prudent person can ever reach onto a just conclusion that both the accused Raju @ Rajmal and Mangu Khan were friends or were in contact with each other. In the firm opinion of this Court and from the evidence led above, it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that both the accused were friends or that they hatched a conspiracy to commit robbery and murder of deceased Abhay Singh. Although criminal conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and in a clandestine manner but at least some evidence howsoever slender is required to infer (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (10 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] meeting of minds and the agreement to devise and undertake an evil design.
Though it is understandable that it may be difficult for the prosecution to connect every isolated act or statement of an accused to an act or statement of another accused but stray acts executed in darkness cannot become intelligible without there being existence of a common objective or purpose connecting individuals to the thread of the alleged conspiracy. Before fastening the liability upon the accused on the charge of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative for the Court to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in placing on record the material which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 120-B of the IPC. The Apex Court has observed in the case of State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr reported in (2000) 8 SCC 203 which is reproduced as under:-
"... A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy......"
We will now proceed to examine the other evidence led by the prosecution regarding alleged recoveries effected at the instance of accused Raju @ Rajmal who was arrested on 19.03.1988. His memo of arrest is exhibited as Ex.P/17 which shows conspicuous interpolation regarding time of arrest i.e. 4:30 p.m. A carbon copy of the self same document given to the accused with the charge sheet was tendered into evidence which is marked as Ex.D/1, as per which, the time of arrest was 5:30 (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:08 PM) (11 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] p.m. Perusal of the original memo (Ex.P/17) makes it abundantly clear that the time of arrest has been interpolated therein at a later stage. Interpolation on the time mentioned in the arrest memo (Ex.P/17) shows that the concerned police officer changed the time from 5:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. well after the conclusion of the investigation because had it been corrected at the time of preparation of memos, then certainly, the carbon copy (Ex.D/1) would carry the same impression. This glaring defect reveals that a pall of doubt is hung over the fairness of the agency while investigating the present case. It seems that since the disclosure statement of the accused Raju @ Rajmal (Ex.P/42) shown to be prepared at 5:30 p.m., therefore, the officer concerned might have thought to avoid anomaly of timing in the two memos. Therefore, when this fact came to the notice of the concerned police officer, he made the altercation posteriorly. It is alleged that on 21.03.1988, pursuant to the information furnished by the accused Raju @ Rajmal vide disclosure statement (Ex.P/43), a pair of pants (Trousers) and a key were recovered (Ex.P/5). The pair of pants was seized from a bathroom at the petrol pump on 20.03.1988. The incident took place on 14.03.1988 and the place of incident was not bolted or secured from access. The possibility of any other person having access to the bathroom cannot be denied. No evidence has been produced to support the fact that the pair of pants (Ex.P/43) belonged to the accused Rajmal. The same was sent for examination to the FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex.P/47), no human blood was detected from the article marked 'D' i.e. the pair of pants. The FSL report is in no manner (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (12 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] supporting the case of the prosecution and thus, does not provide any nexus between the accused and the crime.
Now, the case of Mangu Khan is to be mulled over. The prosecution claimed to have recovered a weapon (Kunth) vide Ex.P/13 from the accused-respondent Mangu Khan. The recovery of weapon was said to have been effected on 24.03.1988 at 3:30 p.m. from an open place on the left side of a bridge on the highway. Two independent witnesses Lalu Ram (P.W.11) and Shanker (P.W.24) were made witnesses of the Panchnama of this memo. This weapon was claimed to be smeared with blood at the time of its recovery. Lalu Ram P.W. 11 deposed in his on-oath statement that he remained on the bridge while the accused and a constable went under the bridge and brought a weapon. Likewise, Shanker P.W. 24, has also stated in his statement in the trial that he did not see the actual place from where the recovery was effected because at that time, he was on road while Shri Ramdev, SHO (P.W.28) and the accused-Mangu Khan went to the underside of the road and brought the 'Kunth'. He did not notice that at the time of recovery of 'Kunth', the same was smeared with blood. Thereafter, all of them went to the Petrol Pump where the recovery memo of 'Kunth' was prepared and it was sealed.
On perusal of the evidence of Lalu Ram P.W.11 and Shanker P.W. 24 who were the Panch witnesses for the recovery of 'Kunth', it is revealed that these witnesses did not see the exact place from where the weapon was recovered. They had only spoken that the policeman came from the site with a weapon and told them that it was recovered. In our opinion, this evidence is insufficient to (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (13 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] prove the recovery of weapon. The very purpose of requiring a Panch to witness the recovery is to see that independent witnesses vouch for the fact that a particular thing was, as a matter of fact, recovered from a place and in the manner the prosecution alleged it was recovered. It is absolutely necessary for these Panch witnesses to see and observe from where exactly the article was recovered. It would not count if the policeman produces certain articles and informs the Panch witnesses that he had recovered them from a particular place unless the actual place of recovery from where the articles have been recovered is seen by the Panch witnesses. This Court is aptly guided by the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2003) 12 SCC 377 wherein it was held that as none of the Panch witnesses had seen the actual recoveries, therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the recoveries as required in law.
Without prejudice to the above, it is to be seen whether the recovery of 'Kunth' establishes a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged crime. The 'Kunth' is a sharp edged weapon. An autopsy was conducted on the body of deceased Abhay Singh by Dr.N.S. Kothari, Medical Jurist (P.W.5) and he prepared the Postmortem report (Ex.P/6), as per which injuries Nos.1 to 5 were lacerated wounds, injuries Nos. 6 & 7 were abrasions and injury No.8 was a bruise. The Medical Jurist stated in his statement that the lacerated wounds, abrasions and the bruise found on the body of the deceased are normally caused by (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (14 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] a weapon having blunt edge. Thus, even if the recovery of 'Kunth' from the accused is assumed to be genuine, the same does not connect the accused with the alleged crime. The FSL report (Ex.P/
47) reveals that human blood group could not be detected from the article marked 'F' i.e. the 'Kunth'. Even Shanker P.W. 24 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not notice any blood on the weapon ('Kunth').
In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the recovery of 'Kunth' at the instance of accused-respondent Mangu Khan does not carry any weight and the same does not support the cause of the prosecution.
Let us now come to the point of recovery of currency note of denomination of Rs.100/- at the instance of accused-Mangu Khan. The story of the prosecution is that the accused-Mangu Khan gave a note of Rs.100/- to his friend named Allahnoor, however, the said friend was not examined in the trial. The currency note does not bear any specification or any special mark of identification so as to connect the accused-Mangu Khan with the alleged crime. The recovery of currency note from the said accused cannot in any manner connect him with the alleged crime. It would be interesting to note here that Mangi Lal P.W. 17, who has been made a witness to this memo, deposed in the trial that the police officials of Police Station Dabok used to call him frequently once or twice a week, as and when they required the attendance of a witness or to append signatures on a memo of arrest or a memo of recovery because his shop was near the police station. Since his shop was situated near the Police Station, therefore, whenever (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (15 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] he was called by the Police officers, he used to go there and put his signatures to oblige them. He further stated that when he went to the Police Station, the memos were already prepared and he only appended his signatures over them. Neither he saw the note nor was the same shown to him and he did not even know who brought the currency note there. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the evidence to this effect is nothing but a futile exercise rendering no help to the case of the prosecution.
We may also note that the prosecution relied upon the recovery of certain currency notes made at the instance of the accused-Mangu Khan vide recovery memo Ex.P/4. As per the story of the prosecution, 14 notes of Rs.100/-, 4 notes of Rs.50/- and 6 notes of Rs.5/-, amounting to a total of Rs.1,630/-, were in a bundle. Every note had the initial of Ram Chandra P.W.10 who was working as a salesman at Hari Priya Petrol Pump. He stated before the Court that in the evening of the fateful day of the incident, he handed over a sum of Rs.14,610/- to the deceased Abhay Singh. The currency notes were in the denomination of Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- and Rs.10/-, he appended his signatures on the first note of the bundle and then, after handing over the charge, he left for his house. First of all, the recovered amount is not the same which the said witness handed over to the deceased. It seems that with a view to show direct connectivity of the recovery with the alleged incident, the task of signing the currency notes had been undertaken subsequently for which prudent reasons were assigned by the learned trial Court. The axle of the truck was found lying on the crime scene and then, the same was sent to (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (16 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] the FSL for detection of blood vide FSL report Ex.P/47, however, no blood was detected on it. Thus, this theory also goes down the drain that the injuries were caused by axle of truck recovered from the crime scene. This Court is in full agreement with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court that the above recoveries in no manner help the case of the prosecution.
The case of the prosecution has several flaws in it. As per the case of the prosecution, a guy wearing turban came to the Petrol Pump to refuel his vehicle; he entered into the office of the Petrol Pump where he saw the accused Raju @ Rajmal lying there,tied with a rope. Some other prosecution witnesses also affirmed the fact that the accused Raju @ Rajmal was lying there in a helpless condition with his limbs bound by a plastic string. Surprisingly, the said turbaned guy was neither interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor examined during the trial. Dalpat Singh P.W. 13 stated on oath that the turbaned guy informed him regarding the untoward incident that happened at the Petrol Pump and therefore, he called the Police and informed them regarding the incident and when he reached to the place of incident, he saw that the accused Raju @ Rajmal was lying there tied hand and foot. The FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Dabok by no one else but by the accused Raju @ Rajmal himself wherein he mentioned the names of Bheem Singh, Ratan Singh and four other persons yet surprisingly, the named persons were never interrogated or made witness to this incident by the prosecution. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the relevant evidence was withheld by the prosecution.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM)
(17 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, this Court has to avoid the influence of the poignant nature of the prosecution's case, only then the legal nature of the evidence led by the prosecution will come to fore. In dealing with the circumstantial evidence, the rules specifically applicable to such evidence must be kept in mind and conjectures should not be allowed to take place of legal proof. The suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of a legally admissible evidence. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, it is to be kept in mind that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite in tendency and must be such so as to exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such so as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused and none other than him. Not even a single circumstance has been proved beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt whilst in cases based on indirect evidence and relevant evidence having no direct evidence of principal fact; every circumstance must be established individually and when taken cumulatively, they should point towards the guilt of the accused.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and (Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM) (18 of 18) [CRLA-128/1992] thereof the learned trial Judge has aptly appreciated and assessed the evidence which was brought on record. The findings so arrived at by the learned trial Judge is convincing, legal and error free, thus, requires no interference by this Court in the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal. The submissions made at the behest of the appellant-State are devoid of merit, sans any force, thus, deserve to be rejected. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.1991 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Case No.104/1990 is hereby affirmed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused-respondents are discharged.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
5-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 12:30:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)