State Of Rajasthan vs Mohal Lal & Ors

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing acquittal of the respondents who faced

trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Originally five persons

faced trial and out of them two accused persons namely Moti Ram and Ramji Lal

were acquitted by judgment of learned Sessions Judge, jhunjhunu. By the judgment

which was impugned before the High Court, the present respondents were found

guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution version in a nutshell that on 4.11.1995 Balusingh

(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was assaulted by the present respondents

and the two acquitted accused persons and in the process Balu Singh lost his life.

Information was lodged by Madan Singh Yadav (PW9) who was the son of the

deceased. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons

pleaded innocence, trial was held. As noted above, the present respondents were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The

convicted person preferred an appeal before the High Court which as noted above

directed their acquittal. The High Court found the evidence of so-called eye-witness

PW1, 2,5 and 9 to be not credible and cogent and therefore directed the acquittal.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant stated that since

four eye-witnesses were there, there evidence should not have been discarded to

direct acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the

High Court submitting that the view taken by the High Court is a possible view and

has been arrived at after analysing the evidence of eye-witness.

5. It is to be noted that the conduct of the so-called eye-witness was absolutely

unnatural. They did not make any effort to either save the deceased when he was

being assaulted or when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead body

of the deceased.

6. Though in all cases the conduct of persons would not be determinative, it

would depend on several factors. In the present case undoubtedly four persons who

claimed to have witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save the

deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons. PW1 was the son of the

deceased. The High Court noticed that the presence of so-called eye witnesses was

practically was not acceptable because of the various variations in the statement

made during investigation and made in the court.

7. The High Court found that the conduct was not only unnatural but also proved

that their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful. The view taken by the High

Court is a plausible one, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal which is

accordingly dismissed.