SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of Rajasthan vs Ganesh & Anr on 31 March, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 41 / 2017
State of Rajasthan

—-Appellant
Versus

1. Ganesh S/o Mangilal, B/c Brahman

2. Prem Singh S/o Malsingh, B/c Rajput
Both R/o Village Jinrasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu

—-Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P., for the State
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
31/03/2017

Appellant-State has preferred this Leave to Appeal under

Section 378(iii) (i) Cr.P.C. to assail impugned judgment dated

04.10.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh,

District Churu (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case

No.24/2014. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has

acquitted accused-respondents for offence punishable under

Sections 450, 354 376/511 IPC.

The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that

prosecutrix Ms. ‘A’, wife of Ranvir Singh Rajput, submitted a

written report Ex.P/1 before Police Station, Sujangarh stating

therein that she entered into matrimony with Ranvir Singh Rajput

five years back and since then she is being harassed by her

husband and in-laws. Attributing ill-intention on the part of her
(2 of 4)
[CRLLA-41/2017]

brother-in-law (Jeth) Prem Singh, she has alleged commission of

aforesaid offences against him and other accused Ganesh in the

night of previous day i.e. on 14.09.2014. As per version of the

prosecutrix, at about 10.30 p.m. when she was sleeping, both the

accused persons came and tried to molest her and on her raising

alarm, some of the neighbours came there and the accused

persons fled away.

On the basis of the report, FIR No.295/2014 was registered

for offence under Sections 456, 354A, 354B read with Section 34

IPC. After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against

the accused persons for offences under Sections 457, 354 and

376/511 read with Section 34 IPC.

The matter was, later on, committed to the Court of Sessions

for trial. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge,

framed charges against the accused-respondents for offence

under Sections 376/511, 450 and 354 IPC. In order to prove

charges against the accused-respondents, prosecution examined

eight witnesses and exhibited eight documents. Subsequent to

that, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were

recorded. In defence, accused persons examined two witnesses,

namely, D.W. 1 Ranvir Singh and D.W. 2 Mahendra Singh. Upon

conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court heard final arguments

and by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons for

the aforesaid offences with a definite finding that prosecution has

failed to prove charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned

trial Court has also noticed serious contradictions and

inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix and further found
(3 of 4)
[CRLLA-41/2017]

that the other prosecution witnesses have not corroborated her

version. That apart, learned trial Court has also taken note of

some relevant facts including the compromise which was arrived

at between prosecutrix and her in-law’s family pursuant to a case

registered by her against them for offence under Section 498A

IPC. While recording finding favouring the cause of accused-

respondents, learned trial Court has also taken note of the

evidence of D.W. 1 Ranvir Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, and

other witnesses.

I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the

impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the record of the

case.

After threadbare examination of the testimony of prosecutrix

P.W.1 Ms. ‘A’ and the statements of other prosecution witnesses,

there remains no quarrel that a cumulative reading of entire

evidence is insufficient to prove guilt against the accused persons

for the aforesaid offences.

While it is true that prosecutrix P.W. 1 has castigated the

accused-respondents for the offences but then in view of serious

pitfalls in her statements, it is not possible to treat her testimony

of sterling worth so as to record finding of guilt against the

accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, her

version is not supported by other prosecution witnesses. A

glaring fact, that at the time of occurrence of incident, other

family members including husband of the prosecutrix, were

present but on her raising alarm, neighbours came at the site but

none of the family members responded to her alarm, also creates
(4 of 4)
[CRLLA-41/2017]

serious doubts about the occurrence of alleged incident. There is

yet another aspect of the matter that husband of the prosecutrix

himself has appeared in the witness box as defence witness and

has completely disowned the entire incident.

Therefore, in totality of circumstances, in my considered

opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any manifest error

in appreciation of evidence and the conclusions drawn by the

learned trial Court cannot be categorized as perverse or inherently

improbable. The legal position is no more res-integra that an

appellate Court, while considering a verdict of acquittal, can very

well re-appreciate the evidence but then upon reappreciation of

evidence, if the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that two

views are possible and the view taken by the learned trial Court is

a probable one then it is not desirable to substitute its view for

upsetting the verdict of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

As observed supra, I have not been able to find any

perversity in the appreciation of evidence and conclusions drawn

by the learned trial Court, therefore feel dissuaded to grant leave

in the matter.

Consequently, leave to appeal craved for is declined and the

appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(P.K. LOHRA) J.

Bharti/4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation