Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baluram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 115/1993
1. Baluram s/o Shri Laduram, by Caste Meghwal
2. Motiram s/o Shri Laduram, by Caste Janglia
3. Durgasingh s/o Shri Sugansingh, by Caste Rajput
4. Mahendrasingh s/o Shri Govind Singh, by caste Rajput
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chakrawati Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, P.P. assisted by
Ms. Shivangi Pathak for Mr. Deepak
Menaria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment Reserved on: 06/08/2025 Pronounced on: 06/11/2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 5/92, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
Accused-appellant Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
3(2)(iv) of Life Imprisonment Rs 500/- each, in
SC/ST(prevention of default of payment of
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
Atrocities) Act fine to further undergo
1 month Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC 6 months Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Balaram, and Motiram:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
Section 436 IPC 5 years Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
1 month Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Section 452 IPC 6 months Rigorous Rs 500/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
Accused-appellant Durgasingh, Mahendrasingh, Balaram, and
Motiram:
Offence under Sentence(s) Fine(s)
Section(s)
Section 323 IPC 3 months Rigorous Rs 200/- each, in
Imprisonment default of payment of
fine to further undergo
15 days Rigorous
Imprisonment.
1.1. At the outset, it is noted that accused-appellants No. 1 and 2, namely Balaram and Motiram, have expired during pendency of the appeal. Hence, the adjudication survives only in respect of appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh.
2. The present case arises out of a written report dated 11.02.1990 lodged by the complainant Shankarlal at about 9:15 AM at police station Piparcity, alleging therein that on 10.02.1990 (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] at about 8 AM, the accused-appellants entered into his shack (kachhi dhani) and started beating him, as a result whereof the complainant Shankarram received multiple injuries, including one on head.
2.1. It is also alleged in the report that the accused Durgasingh with an intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to the shack belonging to the complainant Shankarram, lit fire as a result whereof, all articles lying in the aforesaid dhani were burnt. Smt. Kamla, Smt. Situri, Durgara, and Laluram are named in the FIR, who are said to have witnessed this incident. On receiving the information, the S.H.O. Police Station, Piparcity registered a regular criminal case being FIR Case No. 183/90 and the investigation ensued.
2.2. After the investigation, a chargesheet pertaining to the offences punishable under Section 447, 452, 323, and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(iv) and (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1989') was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Piparcity, who in turn committed the case for trial under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2.3. The charges under Section 323, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)
(iii), (iv), and (v)of the Act of 1989 were read over to the accused-appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh; and to accused-appellants Balaram and Motiram under Section 452, 323, and 436 IPC were read over and explained to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication in the present case.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] 2.4. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 20 witnesses and 21 documents were exhibited; in defence, 5 witnesses were produced on behalf of the accused-appellants whereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question. Accused-appellant Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh pleaded that at the time of the incident they were Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively. The rest of the accused persons said that the father of the plaintiff wanted to plough the field of Pukhram Lohar and hence this false case was filed, but no evidence of any kind was presented in their defence. 2.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed a material irregularity in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has thereby erred both in law and on facts in convicting the accused- appellants. It was contended that the entire prosecution story is false, concocted, and based on the testimony of highly interested witnesses belonging to the same family as the complainant. The (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] finding of guilt recorded against the accused-appellants, therefore, is wholly unsustainable.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused- appellants have been falsely implicated due to local enmity arising from agricultural land disputes between the complainant's father and one Pukhraj Lohar, who was unrelated to the appellants. It was argued that there existed no prior animosity or motive on the part of the appellants to commit the offences alleged. The absence of motive assumes greater significance when the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions. 3.1.1 . It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to motive, though the same forms an important link in cases resting on circumstantial and testimonial evidence. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellants.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged incident took place on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on 11.02.1990 at 9:15 a.m., i.e., after a delay of nearly 25 hours, despite the police station being situated close to the village. It was contended that no satisfactory explanation has been provided for such delay, which gives rise to the possibility of afterthought and deliberation. The delay in registration of FIR, coupled with lack of prompt medical corroboration, seriously undermines the spontaneity and authenticity of the prosecution version.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case is founded exclusively on the depositions of PW-7 Shankarlal (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] (complainant), PW-8 Smt. Kamla (wife), and PW-9 Smt. Situri (sister-in-law), all being closely related to each other. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
3.3.1. It was urged that the independent witnesses PW-1 Bhuraram and PW-2 Bhikhara categorically deposed that they did not witness the accused committing any such act. Their statements demolish the prosecution's claim that the incident occurred in broad daylight in presence of villagers. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that there are glaring contradictions between the statements of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9 with regard to the time of occurrence, the role of individual accused, and the exact place of fire. PW-7 stated that the incident occurred at 8:00 a.m., PW-8 at 7:30 a.m., and PW-9 admitted that she reached the place only after seeing smoke. The inconsistency in their testimonies is material and cannot be attributed to mere lapse of memory.
3.4.1. It was contended that in absence of corroboration from neutral witnesses, the conviction based solely on related witnesses is legally unsound.
3.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the investigation conducted in the present case was perfunctory and in complete disregard to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 3.5.1. It was pointed out that no lathi, kerosene container, or matchstick was recovered from any of the accused-appellants. Further, no FSL report or scientific evidence was produced to establish that the alleged burning was caused by human agency.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] The investigating officer did not seize any burnt articles from the site or produce them before the court.
3.5.2. It was further argued that the site plan (Ex. P- ) does not clearly depict the exact location of the alleged "dhani" in relation to the complainant's house. The prosecution failed to establish whether the place was indeed a dwelling house or merely a temporary shed used for storing agricultural implements. 3.5.3. Learned counsel emphasized that the medical evidence shows only simple injuries on the complainant, which is inconsistent with the allegation of an assault by four persons armed with lathis. The non-recovery of any weapon or burnt material completely demolishes the prosecution case and entitles the appellants to benefit of doubt.
3.6. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the structure allegedly burnt was a dwelling house. The complainant himself described it as a "kachhi jhopdi"
or "dhani" used for storage. It was argued that in absence of evidence to show residential use, the charge under Section 436 IPC cannot stand, as that provision applies only to destruction of dwelling houses or places of worship. Consequently, it was submitted that the conviction under Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is dependent upon proof of burning of a dwelling, is equally untenable in law. 3.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the essential ingredient of offences under Section 3(2)(iii-v) of the SC/ST Act, namely, that the act was committed on the ground that the victim (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, has not been established by the prosecution.
3.7.1. It was argued that mere reference to the caste of the complainant in the FIR does not fulfill the requirement of intent. There is no evidence that the alleged offence was committed with an intention to humiliate or harm the complainant on account of his caste status.
3.8. Learned counsel further submitted that accused-appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh specifically pleaded the defence of alibi, asserting that they were at Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively, on the date of incident. It was pointed out that this plea was supported by defence witnesses DW-2 to DW-4, who were not discredited in cross-examination. However, the learned Trial Court summarily rejected the plea of alibi without giving cogent reasons.
3.9. Learned counsel also submitted that all the accused- appellants remained on bail during trial as well as during pendency of appeal and never misused the liberty granted to them. This conduct reflects their cooperation with the judicial process and supports the bona fides of their defence. 3.10. Learned counsel submitted that the cumulative effect of the contradictions in prosecution evidence, the absence of motive, the failure to prove caste-based intent, and the non-corroboration by forensic evidence creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appellants are entitled to acquittal of major offences under Sections 436, 452 IPC and Sections 3(2)(iii-v) of the Act of 1989, and in the alternative, their (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] conviction may be altered to the minor offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code with the sentence already undergone. 3.11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that during pendency of the appeal, both parties have amicably settled their dispute and executed a compromise deed, expressing their desire to maintain peace; offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC being compoundable, the compromise deserves acceptance to that extent, while in respect of Section 436 IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though non-compoundable, the settlement and lapse of over three decades may be considered as a mitigating circumstance for leniency in sentence. 3.12. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of
(i) Dashrath Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023, decided on 29.01.2024);
(ii) Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025);
(iii) Ramgopal & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, decided on 11.02.2025);
(iv) Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021);
4. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State and Ms. Shivani Pathak for Mr. Deepak Menaria appearing on behalf of the complainant, submitted that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and documentary evidence.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] 4.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimonies of PW-7 Shankarlal, PW-8 Smt. Kamla, and PW-9 Smt. Situri are natural, cogent, and consistent on material particulars. Their relationship with the victim does not make them unreliable when their presence at the scene is natural.
4.2. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the spot inspection, site plan, and seizure memos corroborate the eyewitness account. The dhani and household articles were found burnt soon after the incident, confirming the occurrence. 4.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the incident was a result of long-standing hostility between the complainant and the accused side. The motive, therefore, is sufficiently established and supports the prosecution case. 4.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the delay in lodging FIR was due to the complainant tending to the injured and arranging for safety of his family. Such minor delay does not prejudice the prosecution.
4.5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigating officer conducted fair investigation, prepared site plan, collected samples, and examined all relevant witnesses. Absence of FSL report or weapon recovery does not nullify otherwise consistent oral evidence.
4.6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the complainant and witnesses have categorically stated the caste status of the victim and the accused's awareness thereof. The acts of trespass, assault, and arson were directed against a Scheduled Caste family, attracting Sections 3(2)(iii-v) of the SC/ST Act.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] 4.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the plea of alibi was rightly rejected as the defence failed to produce convincing evidence of the accused's presence elsewhere. The trial court's finding on this issue is based on sound reasoning. 4.8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that non- examination of independent witnesses is not fatal when the testimony of injured and natural witnesses is trustworthy. The courts have consistently upheld convictions on such evidence. 4.9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compromise, though genuine, cannot override the statutory bar against compounding of serious offences under the SC/ST Act and Section 436 IPC.
4.10. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sentence awarded is proportionate to the gravity of offences and calls for no interference. Learned Public Prosecutor finally submitted that the appeal deserves dismissal, and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.03.1993/20.03.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur, be affirmed in toto.
4.11. Learned Counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of:
(i) Gian Singh vs State of Punjab,((2012) 10 SCC 303, decided on 24.09.2012);
(ii) Narinder Sinder & Ors. Vs State of Punjab, ((2014) 6 SCC 466, decided on 27.03.1970);
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan & Ors., ((2019) 5 SCC 688, decided on 01.01.1970);
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993]
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the record as well as the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 5/92, whereby the accused- appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 323, 436, 452 IPC and Sections 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is noted that accused-appellants Balaram and Motiram have since expired; hence, the adjudication is confined to the surviving appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh.
7. This Court observes that the prosecution case originates from a written report dated 11.02.1990 lodged by complainant Shankarlal at Police Station, Piparcity, at about 9:15 a.m., alleging that on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., the accused-appellants forcibly entered his "kachhi dhani" (shack) and assaulted him, causing injuries, including one on his head. It was further alleged that accused Durgasingh, with intent to cause wrongful loss, set fire to the said structure, resulting in destruction of articles stored therein. The report named Smt. Kamla, Smt. Situri, Durgara, and Laluram as witnesses to the occurrence. This Court observes that the FIR was registered as Case No. 183/90 and investigation ensued, culminating in filing of a chargesheet under Sections 447, 452, 323, and 436 IPC and Sections 3(2)(iv) & (v) of the SC/ST (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Piparcity, who committed the case to the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jodhpur.
8. This Court observes that although the incident is alleged to have occurred on 10.02.1990 at about 8:00 a.m., the FIR was lodged only on 11.02.1990 at 9:15 a.m., reflecting a delay of nearly twenty-five hours despite the Police Station, Piparcity, being situated in close proximity to the place of occurrence. Several persons--namely Bhuraram, Bhikharam, Kamla, Situri, Durgara, and Laluram--were admittedly present or reached the scene soon after the occurrence, yet none of them went to the nearby police station to report the matter. The prosecution's further claim that Bhuraram and Bhikharam instead went to the Bhilada Police Station, which is farther away, appears wholly unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human conduct. In the absence of a plausible explanation for not approaching the nearest police station, the delay in lodging the FIR assumes material significance and gives rise to a legitimate inference of deliberation and embellishment, thereby affecting the spontaneity and reliability of the prosecution version.
9. This Court also observes that there exists a significant doubt regarding the identity of accused Mahendrasingh. The complainant, PW-7 Shankarlal, in his testimony, categorically stated that he did not know the father of Mahendrasingh and could only say that he was a person residing "towards Jalore." Such vague and uncertain identification falls far short of the standard required to fix the presence and participation of an accused in the commission of an offence. The absence of clear and consistent (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] evidence establishing who Mahendrasingh actually was, or his precise connection to the incident, renders his identification highly doubtful.
10. This Court observes that the statement of PW-6 Dhangaram was recorded nearly six months after the alleged incident, and notably, his name does not find mention in the FIR or in the list of initial eyewitnesses. The unexplained delay in recording his statement, coupled with his absence from the contemporaneous account of the occurrence, seriously undermines the credibility of his testimony.
10.1. This Court observes that the prosecution examined 20 witnesses, of whom PW-7 (Shankarlal), PW-8 (Smt. Kamla), and PW-9 (Smt. Situri) are the principal witnesses. Their testimonies reveal material contradictions on vital particulars. 10.2. This Court further observes that there exists a material contradiction between the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses regarding the actual act of setting fire to the structure. The complainant, PW-7 Shankarlal, deposed that accused Durgaram lit the matchstick while accused Mahendrasingh spread the fire, whereas PW-8 Smt. Kamla, wife of the complainant, stated that it was Mahendrasingh who lit the match and Durgaram who lit a piece of paper, and that subsequently Motiram and Balaram spread the fire. These inconsistencies strike at the root of the prosecution case, as they directly concern the identification of the assailants and the manner of commission of the alleged offence. When the prosecution witnesses materially differ on such a fundamental aspect of the incident, it creates a serious doubt as (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] to the accuracy of their observation and the truthfulness of their version, thereby rendering the prosecution story unreliable. 10.3. PW-9 (Smt. Situri, sister-in-law) admitted that she reached the scene after seeing smoke, thereby not being an eyewitness to the assault itself.
10.4. These inconsistencies regarding time, sequence, and participation of individual accused are material and not explainable as mere lapses of memory. When the entire case rests on oral testimony of related witnesses, such contradictions seriously weaken the prosecution's case.
10.5. This Court further observes that all the material prosecution witnesses examined in the present case are closely related to the complainant and thus fall within the category of interested witnesses. PW-7 Shankarlal is the complainant himself, PW-8 Smt. Kamla is his wife, and PW-9 Smt. Situri is his sister-in-law. No independent or neutral witness from the village has supported the prosecution version in any material particular. While the mere relationship of witnesses with the victim is not, by itself, a ground to discard their testimony, their evidence must be subjected to strict scrutiny and accepted only when it inspires confidence and is found to be wholly trustworthy. In the present case, the testimonies of these related witnesses suffer from material contradictions, exaggerations, and inconsistencies, and in the absence of corroboration from any independent source, reliance upon such evidence would be unsafe.
11. This Court observes that PW-1 (Bhuraram) and PW-2 (Bhikhara), both independent villagers, categorically deposed that (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] they did not see the accused committing the alleged acts of assault or arson. These statements directly contradict the prosecution's claim that the incident occurred in broad daylight in presence of several villagers. No other independent witness has supported the prosecution in material particulars. The absence of independent corroboration renders reliance on closely-related witnesses unsafe, particularly when their statements are mutually inconsistent.
12. This Court observes that the investigation suffers from substantial procedural and evidentiary lapses:
(i) No lathi, kerosene container, or matchbox was recovered from any accused;
(ii) No FSL report or chemical analysis of samples has been placed on record to establish that the burning was caused by human agency;
These omissions collectively indicate a perfunctory investigation. In cases of arson, where ocular evidence is uncertain, forensic corroboration becomes vital. Its absence here substantially undermines the prosecution's version.
13. This Court observes that the medical report shows the complainant sustained only simple injuries. The injuries described are inconsistent with the allegation of an assault by four persons armed with lathis. Absence of grievous injury, coupled with non- recovery of weapons, weakens the prosecution narrative of a coordinated attack.
14. This Court observes that accused-appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh specifically pleaded alibi, asserting that they were (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] at Jalore and Jaisalmer, respectively, at the time of the alleged occurrence. This plea was supported by DW-2 to DW-4, who were not discredited in cross-examination. The learned Trial Court rejected this plea summarily, without cogent reasoning or analysis. The prosecution failed to bring convincing evidence to rebut the alibi. In criminal jurisprudence, where an alibi raises a reasonable doubt regarding presence of the accused, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused. The failure to consider the alibi properly constitutes a significant infirmity in the trial court's judgment.
15. This Court observes that the prosecution has not established any specific motive or animus against the complainant. The record suggests a land dispute between the complainant's father and one Pukhraj Lohar, unconnected with the accused. The absence of established motive gains importance where evidence is circumstantial and rests on testimony of interested witnesses.
16. It is further to be noted that the prosecution witnesses were examined over an extended span of nearly two years, creating ample scope for deliberation and improvement upon their earlier versions. Such prolonged gaps between the recording of statements not only dilute the spontaneity and reliability of the witnesses' recollection but also raise a legitimate apprehension of embellishment and afterthought. When the core prosecution witnesses depose at widely separated intervals, particularly in a case resting primarily on oral testimony, the consistency and credibility of their statements become doubtful, thereby (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] weakening the overall evidentiary foundation of the prosecution case.
17. This Court observes that during pendency of this appeal, a compromise deed dated 18.03.2013, was executed between the parties expressing mutual desire to maintain peace. This Court observes that in the present case, the compromise deed does not affect the outcome, as the prosecution itself has failed to establish guilt under the major charges beyond reasonable doubt.
18. This Court further observes that when the judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided under Section 386(b) of Cr.PC, which reads as under:-
"386. Powers of the Appellate Court.--
(b) in an appeal from a conviction--
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same."
18.1.This Court also observes that as provided under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused.
19. This Court observes that, upon cumulative evaluation of the entire record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The unexplained 25-hour delay in lodging the FIR, despite proximity of the police station, erodes the spontaneity of the complaint. The ocular evidence of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9 (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] suffers from material inconsistencies regarding time, sequence, and participation, while independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the prosecution. The investigation is marred by non-recovery of weapons or kerosene container, absence of FSL report, and a vague site plan failing to show the structure as a dwelling-house. Medical evidence discloses only simple injuries, inconsistent with an assault by four persons. The alibi set up by the appellants remains unrebutted, and no motive or caste-based intent, an essential element under the SC/ST Act, has been established. Taken together, these infirmities create a serious cumulative doubt as to the prosecution version. 19.1. Therefore, in the presence of the such lacunae, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, which in the present case, are insufficient in themselves to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and thus, it would be appropriate to reverse the findings of conviction against the accused- appellants, as recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment.
19.2. This Court also observes that looking into the overall factual matrix and the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence and the precedent law, as placed before us, it is a fit case to exercise the power conferred under Section 386(2), which pertains to the reversal of a finding from conviction to acquittal.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.03.1993 and the order of sentence dated 20.03.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Jodhpur in Sessions (Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41203-DB] (20 of 20) [CRLA-115/1993] Case No. 5/92 is quashed and set aside. The charges against the surviving accused-appellants Durgasingh s/o Sugansingh and Mahendrasingh s/o Govind Singh recorded under Section 3(2)(iv) of the Act of 1989, Sections 436, 452 and 323 IPC; are hereby set aside. The accused- appellants Durgasingh and Mahendrasingh are acquitted of all the aforesaid offences. The convictions recorded against Balaram and Motiram having already abated owing to their demise, no further order is required in respect of them. The sentence of the accused-appellants have been suspended vide order dated 06.05.1993 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in D.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 113/1993; they need not surrender in connection with the present case; their bail bonds stand discharged.
19.1. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., the surviving accused-appellants are hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond each in the like amount before the learned Trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the accused- appellants shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so.
19.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 77-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 02:45:00 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 10:29:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)