Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Sawai Singh And Ors on 22 May, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 615/2003
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sawai Singh S/o Shri Tog Singh
2. Bhojraj Singh S/o Hal Singh
3. Maha Singh S/o Hal Singh
4. Hal Singh S/o Shri Tog Singh
all by caste Rajput, R/o Anandgarh, Police Station Pugal, District
Bikaner, (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik for
Mr. S.K. Verma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order Reserved on: 24/04/2025 Pronounced on: 22/05/2025 Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:
1. The present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved against the judgment dated 13.09.2002 passed by Shri Om Prakash Gupta RHJS, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.152/2001 (State of Rajasthan vs. Sawai Singh & Ors.), whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused-
respondents, Sawai Singh and Ors. for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 & 302, read with 149, 325, read with 149, 307 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] Facts of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Bhoor Singh, son of Khet Singh, submitted his Parcha Bayan to the police officials on 12.04.1996 at around 1:15 P.M., stating that they had taken one murabba (agricultural field) on contract for a period of one year.
This murabba was previously cultivated by Sawai Singh, son of Tog Singh. It was further stated that the scheduled water turn for the field was fixed for Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. Bhoor Singh mentioned that his brother, Shri Dan Singh, had gone to the field at around 6:30 A.M., and thereafter, Bhoor Singh, along with Panch Singh, proceeded towards the murabba at around 8:30 A.M. While travelling approximately 2 kilometers, they saw a tractor belonging to Saheb Ram Godara approaching from the opposite direction, which was being driven by Dilip Godara, son of Saheb Ram.
3. It was further stated that the tractor came to a halt, and Bhoor Singh saw his brother, Dan Singh, lying injured inside the tractor. Dan Singh informed him that at around 7:10 A.M., when he had reached the field to avail their scheduled water turn, he observed Sawai Singh, Khan Singh, and Bhojraj Singh diverting water into their own field. Upon raising an objection, Bhojraj Singh allegedly grabbed and stretched his testicles, after which Khan Singh and Sawai Singh began assaulting him with fists. It was further stated that Dilip Godara then arrived at the scene and intervened, helping Dan Singh free himself from the assault. Thereafter, Dilip Godara placed him in the tractor.
4. It was averred by Bhoor Singh in the Parcha Bayan that he instructed Dan Singh to proceed directly to the Police Station in (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] the tractor, while he and Panch Singh went to the agricultural field. They reached the field around 8:30 A.M., where they saw Sawai Singh standing with a lathi, Hal Singh with a dhariya, Khan Singh with a kassi, Bhojraj Singh with a lathi, and Maha Singh also armed with a lathi. It was alleged that Sawai Singh questioned how they could have taken the murabba on contract over and above them and then incited the other accused to kill Bhoor Singh and Panch Singh. Following this, Sawai Singh struck Panch Singh on the head with a lathi. Hal Singh then inflicted a blow with a dhariya, hitting Panch Singh on the back of the head, after which Bhojraj Singh also struck Panch Singh on the head with a lathi, causing heavy bleeding and resulting in Panch Singh collapsing on the ground. Bhoor Singh further stated that when he attempted to intervene, all five accused began assaulting him as well. Khan Singh tried to strike him on the head with a lathi, but he blocked the blow with his hand, causing an injury to his hand. 4.1 It was further averred by Bhoor Singh in his Parcha Bayan that, in the meantime, Sawai Singh, son of Surat Singh Rathore whose agricultural field was situated on the opposite side came running to the site. At that point, all five accused began assaulting Shri Panch Singh, who was lying on the ground, using lathis, and thereafter fled towards the fields. Bhoor Singh stated that he, along with Sawai Singh Rathore, lifted the injured Panch Singh, placed him in a camel cart, and proceeded towards Village Anandgarh. On the way, they encountered Raju Singh Shekhawat driving a tractor. Upon requesting him to stop, they transferred Panch Singh into the tractor with assistance from Raju Ram Jat, who also arrived to help. While on the way, they saw a jeep (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] belonging to the BJP party, which was being used for election campaigning. They then shifted Panch Singh into the jeep and proceeded to the village. Subsequently, Gopal Singh, brother of Bhoor Singh, also joined them, and they all proceeded to Khajuwala Hospital. Upon arrival, the doctor commenced treatment of Panch Singh; however, he was declared dead shortly thereafter. It was also mentioned that by the time they reached the hospital, Dan Singh, Chhatar Singh, and Om Ji had also arrived. Based on the Parcha Bayan, the police registered an FIR against all five accused persons namely, Sawai Singh, Hal Singh, Khan Singh, Bhojraj Singh, and Maha Singh.
5. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation, during which the site of the incident was inspected and blood-stained soil along with other samples were collected. The accused were arrested, and alleged recoveries were made at their instance. Statements of various witnesses were recorded during the course of the investigation. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against four individuals namely, Sawai Singh, Bhojraj Singh, Maha Singh, and Hal Singh. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against the accused. During the course of the trial, 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 37 documents were exhibited in evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during which accused Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh asserted their innocence and claimed that the case had been instituted against them solely to counter a case that they themselves had filed. They further contended that they had been falsely (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] implicated. In support of their defence, 8 documents were exhibited.
5.1 The learned Trial Court, after considering the record and hearing arguments from both sides, acquitted all four accused persons of the offences alleged against them vide judgment dated 13.09.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Rajasthan filed the present leave to appeal.
5.2 However, this Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 30.05.2003, granted leave to the State Government to prosecute the appeal only against accused Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh. The Court gave a categorical finding that no offence was made out against Hal Singh and Maha Singh, noting, inter alia, that Bhoor Singh had not attributed any specific injury to them, among other considerations. Accordingly, the present appeal is confined solely to examining the role of Sawai Singh and Bhojraj Singh in the incident, and whether, based on the evidence on record, the prosecution has succeeded in proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Argument on behalf of appellant-State:
6. Laying a challenge to the above-mentioned judgment, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the present case was based upon the testimony of eye witnesses, and that the evidence of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, Dan Singh P.W.-3, Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 was very clear, consistent, and pointed unerringly towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the learned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved their testimony and, without any justifiable basis, concluded that they were not an (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] eye-witnesses to the incident. It has further been argued that the version of the above-mentioned witnesses is further fortified by the testimony of the Dr. Shyam Kachawaha P.W.-9 as also the version given by Rajiram P.W.-11 and the statement of Police Officials i.e. Malluram P.W.-15 and Devkishan P.W.-17, the Investigating Officer.
7. It has further been argued that the accused had a clear motive to murder the deceased, and that the case involves the formation of an unlawful assembly, wherein the accused persons had gathered with the common object of assaulting and murdering the deceased. It has further been argued that the recovery of the blood-stained weapon of offence from the possession of the accused also completes the chain and this is a relevant consideration which has been completely overlooked by the learned Trial Court.
Argument on behalf of counsel for the respondent-accused:
8. On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the entire body of evidence on record and, on that basis, correctly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the counsel for the appellant-State has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It was further argued that, with regard to the alleged recoveries, neither the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was exhibited, nor was it established that the recovered weapons were blood-stained. Additionally, it was submitted that no question pertaining to the FSL report was put to (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. It has further been argued that the alleged recovery from open houses where the I.O. himself has admitted that various persons were residing and the area was not in an exclusive possession or knowledge of the accused. Furthermore, the recovery has not been proved as the independent witnesses have not been examined and in all the recoveries whatsoever, Chhatar Singh has been kept as a witness, who admittedly is the brother of the deceased, and thus, is a related witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon for proving the alleged recovery.
10. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused that Dilip Godara P.W.-8 in whose tractor Dan Singh was taken and whose presence has been shown at the site, as also Sawai Singh an alleged eye-witness and Rajveer Singh, an important witness whose name appears even in the Parcha Bayan, have been declared hostile and have not supported the version of the prosecution. Not only this, but another important witness, Atte Singh, who was specifically named by Dan Singh as an eye-
witness to the incident of the assault upon him, has not been examined by the prosecution, for reasons best known to them. This, coupled with the fact that there are various inconsistencies in the statements of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh P.W.-7, indicates that Chandan Singh and Chimandan were not eye-witnesses to the incident, and further, that Bhoor Singh has not stated the facts correctly and has made an attempt to falsely implicate the accused-respondents. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly examined each (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] and every aspect of their testimony and has arrived at a definite conclusion that their evidence does not inspire confidence. 10.1 It has further been submitted that another significant aspect of the matter is that the prosecution have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused/respondents. The existence of the cross-case has been admitted by Investigating Officer, Sayar Singh (P.W.-6), who, after investigation in cross case had found Bhoor Singh along with four other persons guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 325 of the IPC. The medical evidence, as well as the arrest memos of the accused, clearly establish that they had sustained injuries. The failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation for these injuries is a significant omission, and on this ground as well, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the accused were not guilty of the offences alleged against them. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused have thus asserted that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court.
Analysis and reasoning:
11. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides and after perusal of the record, we will deal with each and every piece of evidence through which the prosecution has sought to connect the accused with the crime in question.
(i) Eye Witnesses- As far as the 'eye witnesses' are concerned in the present case the prosecution has tried to bring home the guilt against the accused based on evidence of alleged (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] eye-witnesses, Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, Dan Singh P.W.-3, Chimandan P.W.-4, Chandan Singh P.W.-7 and Sawai Singh P.W.-10.
Needless to observe that, insofar as Sawai Singh is concerned, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported its version. As regards Dan Singh, he is not an eye-witness to the second incident but is rather an alleged injured witness in relation to the first incident pertaining to assault upon him. However, he has specifically deposed that the accused Bhojraj Singh, Sawai Singh, and Khan Singh surrounded him, whereupon Bhojraj Singh caught hold of his testicles, and thereafter, all three assaulted him with fists. He has further stated that he sustained injuries on his shoulder, back and various parts of his body, and that he had shown these injuries to the doctor during medical examination. It was further stated that, upon witnessing the incident, Atte Singh arrived at the site and freed him from the grip of the accused. He further stated that, at the relevant time, none of the three accused were carrying any weapons, whether lathis or otherwise. An important aspect of the matter is that, firstly Atte Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, who was a star eye-witness and could had proved the case of the prosecution. Secondly though Dan Singh has been shown to be an injured eye-witness to the first incident, however, his statement does not inspire confidence and the nature of injury could not be proved by the corresponding statement of the examining doctor i.e. Shyam Kachawaha P.W.-9, who had prepared the injury report Exh. P-25, wherein he had specifically stated that no injury was found on body of Dan Singh. Thus, the version given by Dan Singh as regard the first incident does not inspire any (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] confidence whatsoever and the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the accused cannot be implicated in any manner with the incident as narrated by Dan Singh.
As far as Chandan Singh P.W.-7 and Chimandan P.W.-4 are concerned, a bare perusal of the Parcha Bayan Exh. P-1 given by Bhoor Singh as also the statement of Bhoor Singh given during the course of investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., i.e. Exh. D-1 will reveal that the presence of both the above mentioned witnesses has not been specified by Bhoor Singh and he has only specified the presence of Sawai Singh (who has been declared hostile by the prosecution itself).
This, coupled with the fact that the accounts of injuries and the weapons allegedly used by the accused as stated by Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 do not align with the version given by Bhoor Singh P.W.-1, further casts doubt on the consistency and liability of the prosecution's case. To elaborate, Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 claims there were around five assailants, whereas Chimandan P.W.-4 states there were only three. Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 states that Sawai Singh assaulted the deceased with a lathi, whereas Chimandan P.W.-4 claims that Sawai Singh used a jhaliya, and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 states that Sawai Singh assaulted with a kassi. Furthermore, regarding the weapon used by Bhojraj Singh, Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 says he used a lathi, Chandan Singh P.W.-7 states he used a jhaliya, while Chimandan P.W.-4 does not specify the weapon used by him.
There is a significant contradiction between the statements of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 and Chimandan P.W.-4, as Chimandan P.W.-4 states that Bhojraj Singh struck the deceased on the back (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] of the head with a lathi, causing him to fall, however, the postmortem report does not reveal any injury on the back side of the body of the deceased's head; instead, both injuries are located adjacent to each other on the parietal bone. Not only this, but a statement was also made by Chimandan P.W.-4 during the course of his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Police Officials Exh. D-4. In that statement, he claimed that he, along with Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, and Dilip Godara, came running to the spot after witnessing the incident. However, this version is not supported by the accounts of other witnesses. Furthermore, in his statement before the learned Trial Court, Chimandan P.W.-4 asserted that he was already present at the scene when the incident occurred. This glaring contradiction between his Police Officials statement and Court testimony casts serious doubt on his credibility and raises questions about his reliability as an eye-witness.
He rather gives the specific statements that after the incident, he fainted and was unaware of what transpired thereafter. He regained consciousness approximately two hours later and then returned to his Dhani i.e., his house in the village. He further stated that Sawai Singh came running from a distance of approximately two murabbas, and that he, Sawai Singh, and Chandan Singh reached the spot almost simultaneously, with a distance of one murabba separating them from different directions. Given that one murabba is approximately 825 feet, this implies that Sawai Singh would have had to run nearly 1,650 feet to reach the scene. As per his version, all three arrived together, which casts serious doubt on the possibility of any of them truly (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] being an eye witness. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish their presence at the scene at the time of the incident.
Turning to the statement of Chandan Singh P.W.-7, a perusal of his testimony reveals that he stated he came running to the spot when the scuffle began, and that Chimandan and Dilip Godara also arrived at the scene at the same time. He further stated that he could not see who delivered the lathi blow to the deceased, and was unsure whether it was Bhojraj Singh or someone else. He further stated that he became anxious during the incident, was unable to see anything clearly, and did not know who was struck or where the blows landed. He further stated that at the time of the altercation between both parties, he was approximately 150 pawda (i.e. 150x3 = 450 feet), away and by the time he reached the spot, the fight had already concluded. He further stated that he did not make any statement before the police officials and categorically denied having given the statement marked as Exh. D-7 in its entirety. He further stated that Sawai Singh sustained injuries and that his blood was seen dripping at the place of occurrence. This statement clearly indicates that his version does not support the prosecution's narrative as presented by Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 or Chimandan P.W.-
4. As far as Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 is concerned, a bare perusal of his Parcha Bayan Exhibit P-1 and his statement recorded by the police Exhibit B-1 reveals that he did not specify the presence of any person other than Sawai Singh, son of Suraj Singh Chouhan, at the place of occurrence. However, during the course of his examination before the learned Trial Court, he appears to have (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] improved his version by attempting to project Chandan Singh P.W.-7 and Chimandan P.W.-4 as eyewitnesses to the incident. Even according to his own version, the deceased was allegedly struck with five blows on the head and body. However, this claim is not supported by the medical evidence. The postmortem report Exhibit P-23, as well as the testimony of Dr. Shyam Kachawa P.W.-9, leave no room for doubt that only two injuries were found on the body of the deceased both located close to each other on the parietal bone. Notably, no injury was found on the back side of the head, contrary to the assertion made by Bhoor Singh in his statement.
He further stated that all eye witnesses were already present at the site when he arrived; however, this version is not supported by the testimonies of Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, or Chimandan. During the course of his examination, he further improved his version by admitting that, in his earlier statement before the Court, he had stated that the accused was carrying a lathi. However, he later altered his testimony, claiming that it was not a lathi but a dhariya a sharp-edged weapon and asserted that Maha Singh had inflicted a blow with the dhariya on the right ear of the deceased. He further stated that he was being assaulted and, therefore, was not in a position to see as to who inflicted injuries on Panch Singh after he fell down. He further admits that he had wrongly stated in his Parcha Bayan that after Panch Singh fell down, all the accused started assaulting him with lathi blows. Interestingly, he stated that after Panch Singh fell down, Sawai Singh and Suraj Singh arrived thereafter in a cart. He further admitted to the lodging of a cross-case by the accused persons. (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] He further admitted that there were two to three blood spots at the scene of occurrence and that Police had collected only one sample. A perusal of his statement reveals significant improvements and inconsistencies in relation to the number and location of injuries, as compared to the postmortem report. It is also evident that he has substantially altered his version from what was initially recorded in his 'Parcha Bayan' Exhibit P-1 and his statements made before the Police Officials under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He further admitted that after the deceased fell to the ground, Chandan Singh, Sawai Singh, and Chimandan arrived at the scene, which in itself indicates that at least one of them was an eye-witness. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the fact that the statement of Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 does not inspire confidence. Furthermore, the presence of Chimandan P.W.-4 and Chandan Singh P.W.-7 at the scene in question has not been proved, and Sawai Singh P.W.10, has already turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly treated them as not being eyewitnesses and correctly did not rely upon their testimony.
(ii) Information given by the accused-respondents under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, regarding the recovery:
In the present case, the prosecution has also attempted to establish the involvement of the accused based on the recovery made pursuant to the alleged disclosure information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, the prosecution has exhibited Exhibit P-15 to show the recovery of a lathi from the accused, Sawai Singh, and Exhibit P- 19 to demonstrate the recovery of a lathi from Bhojraj Singh. (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] Three recoveries, namely the two mentioned above and one from Khan Singh, are shown to have been made on the same day. A common site plan, Exhibit P-17, was prepared to document the recoveries. The alleged recovery memo indicates that the recoveries were made in the presence of two allegedly independent witnesses, Chhatar Singh and Megh Singh. Strangely, neither the FSL report has been exhibited to establish the presence of blood on the weapon in question, nor has the FSL report been put to the accused during the course of their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Not only this, but one of the recovery witnesses, Chhatar Singh, has been examined, and he does not appear to be an independent witness. Rather, he is a related witness, being the real brother of the deceased, Panch Singh, as he himself admitted during the course of his examination-in-chief. He further does not support the recovery, stating in his testimony that the accused entered the house alone while he (Chhatar Singh) and the police officials remained standing outside in the angan. It was only after the accused returned from inside the house with the alleged weapon that the recovery memo was prepared. He further admits that at the time of the recovery, the women and children of the accused were present in the house, and that all the rooms in the house were open. He also stated that there was no blood visible on the cloth in which the alleged weapon was wrapped. He further stated that he had questioned the police as to why he was being called repeatedly for all the recoveries and for the preparation of various other exhibits. This, coupled with the fact that no blood was found or proven to have been found on the alleged weapon, renders the (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] recovery memo wholly unreliable. Consequently, the accused persons cannot be linked to the offence on the basis of the alleged recovery.
(iii) Injury on the accused-respondents: The prosecution has failed to offer any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the accused. In contrast, the defence has demonstrated that a cross-case was registered, in which the police filed a charge sheet against Bhoor Singh and others for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This, coupled with the fact that during the preparation of the arrest memos of accused Bhojraj Singh and Sawai Singh Exhibits P-29 & P-30, it was recorded that both were injured, including head injuries sustained by accused Sawai Singh as well as Bhojraj Singh. However, no explanation has been provided regarding these injuries. Even the injury reports, Exhibits D-8 and D-9, presented by the defence, clearly show that the accused sustained lacerated wound injuries on the forehead and occipital region. However, the prosecution has failed to establish any such justification. Even Bhoor Singh P.W.-1 admitted that the accused sustained injuries, and at the time when the bloodstained soil was collected, blood belonging to Sawai Singh was also found. However, strangely, the Investigating Officer has acknowledged collecting only one large sample from the alleged site of the incident, without any affirmation as to whose blood sample it actually was. The fact of the injury sustained by Sawai Singh and the presence of his blood at the site has also been admitted by P.W.7, Chandan Singh. Therefore, the lack of any explanation regarding the injury significantly undermines the prosecution's (Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003] case. The learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
12. Consideration in Appeals Against Acquittal: The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, while considering the principles to be kept in mind during the hearing of an appeal against acquittal, summarized the legal position as under:
8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -
8.1 The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2 The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3 The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4 If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5 The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20499-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLA-615/2003]
13. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a misreading of the material available on record. Furthermore, this is not a case where no other reasonable view is possible. In fact, in the present case, the view pointing towards the guilt of the accused is weak and improbable, whereas the alternative view favouring the accused is much stronger and more plausible.
14. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 13.09.2002. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld, and the appeal stands dismissed.
15. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as soon as she would be called upon to do so.
16. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 58-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 10:58:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)