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