Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj vs Ghasi Lal on 3 January, 2020
Bench: Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 361/1985
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Ghasi Lal S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Brahmin, R/o Piraspur, Police
Station Manpur, District Jaipur.
----Accused-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Shri N.S. Gurjar, PP
For Respondent(s) : Shri Rinesh Gupta and Shri Shaurabh
Pratap Singh Chouhan on behalf of
Shri A.K. Gupta
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 03/01/2020 (PER HON'BLE N.S. Dhaddha)
1. The State of Rajasthan has assailed the judgment & order dated 17.8.1984 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Sessions Case No.99/1983 whereby accused respondent Ghasi Lal was acquitted from the charges of offences punishable u/s 302, 376 and 404 IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 8.6.1983 at about 12.40 PM, Hajari S/o Shri Bhagwanya Bairwa (PW-1) gave a written information (Ex. P-1) to SHO, Police Station Gadhmora, District Sawaimadhopur to the effect that his daughter Keshanti who was not feeling well, had gone to take medicine at about 8.00 PM. When Keshanti did not return till 9.00 PM, he (PW-1) came to (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM) (2 of 6) [CRLA-361/1985] the Bus stand in search of his daughter but she was not found anywhere. Hajari Lal (PW-1) after having returned home, along with his brothers searched for his daughter for the entire night. In the morning of the next day at about 9.00 AM, they reached at the Bus stand of Lalsar where Ranjeeta Gujar, Ladma, Chiranji Lal, Rajendra, etc. told them that one girl was lying dead in Deora. They called Sarpanch and other persons. On this information, FIR No.50/1983 (Ex. P-13) was registered at Police Station Gadhmora for offences punishable u/s 302 and 382 IPC.
3. After investigation, chargesheet for offences u/s 302, 404 and 376 IPC was submitted against the accused respondent Ghasi Lal. Accused respondent was charged for the offences punishable u/s 302, 376 and 404 IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited 55 documents.
4. Accused respondent was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused/respondent stated that he had been wrongly implicated in this false case. The accused respondent stated that previously, police had arrested Laxman Singh (Sarpanch), Dr. Ashok and Amar Singh and after 2-4 days one police personnel came and stated that In-charge Sahib had called him. Thereafter, SHO arrested him and freed the mentioned three men. At last, the accused respondent stated that he did not commit any crime and he was innocent. The accused respondent produced one witness Shri Shamsher Singh (DW-1) in his defence.
(Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM)
(3 of 6) [CRLA-361/1985]
5. Learned trial court, after hearing arguments, rendered the impugned judgment dated 17.8.1984 whereby the trial court acquitted the accused respondent from charges of offences punishable u/s 302, 376 and 404 IPC.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State stated that the learned trial court had committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302, 376 and 404 IPC.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that the learned trial court had not appreciated the statement of Hajari (PW-1) in its right perspective. Hajari (PW-1) in his statement clearly stated that the accused respondent had called deceased Keshanti to take medicine, so she had gone to the shop of accused respondent.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that Smt. Keshar (PW-4) - mother of the deceased, in her statement deposed that accused respondent called her daughter, so she had gone for taking medicine from the shop of accused respondent. He argued that the Investigating Officer had taken sample of blood smeared soil in a sealed cover from the shop of accused respondent. The FSL report (Ex. P-53) reveals that there was human blood.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that the Investigating Officer had recovered silver foot anklets from Dharm Pal (PW-8) at the information of accused respondent. He stated that accused respondent had sold these silver foot anklets to Dharm Pal (PW-8). Entry of the sale had been made in Article A-4 (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM) (4 of 6) [CRLA-361/1985] as Ex. P-10. For this handwriting, FSL report was sought. As per FSL report (Ex. P-54), the handwriting of accused respondent was similar to that handwriting which was in Article A-4 (Ex. P-10).
10. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Investigating Officer had recovered two knives at the information of accused respondent. He submitted that the learned trial court had ignored the above these facts and evidence. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.1984 be quashed and set aside and the accused respondent be punished.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and with their assistance, perused the impugned judgment and order and whole material available on record.
13. The learned trial court in its judgment observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that deceased Keshanti had gone to the shop of accused respondent in the night and no one had seen deceased Keshanti with accused respondent. The learned trial court also in its judgment observed that if the accused had ill intention to take silver foot anklets, he would have not left the hand worn silver bangles of the deceased at the time of incident. The learned trial court also noticed the fact that the Investigating Officer had recovered two knives from the accused but prosecution had failed to establish that they were used to commit (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM) (5 of 6) [CRLA-361/1985] murder of Keshanti. The learned trial court in its judgment observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused respondent had sold these silver foot anklets to Dharm Pal (PW-
8). The learned trial court observed in its judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove the handwriting of accused in document Ex.10. The learned trial court also observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the rope which was recovered at the information of accused, had been used to commit murder of deceased Keshanti.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, reasons given by the trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the accused repsondent are sound reasons.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
16. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others vs. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM) (6 of 6) [CRLA-361/1985] the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
17. Appreciation of evidence available on record and findings based thereon returned by the learned trial court are very much cogent, well reasoned and are in consonance with the provisions of law. We do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere in the same. We also cannot become oblivious of the fact that occurrence took place more than thirty six years ago.
18. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
19. Dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M1
(Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 07:49:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)