STATE OF RAJSTHAN Vs. JARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sess. case No. 67/83, the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, vide his judgment dated 31.10.1983 acquitted the respondents, namely, Jarman, Nahney, Mani Mansingh, Sirraj & Ramjit of the offences charged under Sections 148,307, & 307/149, I.P.C. for the incident alleged to have taken place on 26.7.1981. Hence this appeal.

(2.) IN all nine witnesses were produced by the prosecution. The trial Court found the presence of the witnesses, namely, Mohan Singh, Mansukha, Ram Singh & Han Singh, as dubious and doubtful inasmuch as it held that the witnesses named in the complaint all were having animus & enemical relations with the accused respondents with long standing and they were interested and from their evidence, taking support will be fatal to. the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was held to be untrustworthy as a result of the effect of the incogruities and inconsistencies fully of concoction. The trial Court held that the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the incident and the witnesses have changed the place of incident in their evidence by residing from their earliest version given out before the police. That being so, out of 17 accused in the first information report, the police filed challan only against seven persons and only two persons have been held guilty. The injured Raghuvir (P.W. 1) has failed to establish that the respondents have inflicted any blow causing injuries on his person because, looking to the allegation of causing injuries made in his evidence, the corresponding injuries were not found by the doctor on the person of the injured. Therefore, the acts alleged against the respondents were found to be unproved, inasmuch as the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the intention or any knowledge on the part of the respondents that the acts which they were going to do, or the injury which they were going to inflict, would cause death. The trail Court found all the essential ingredients of S. 300, I.P.C., so as to make out the case against the respondents for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C., as lacking. Hence, the respondents were rightly found not guilty under Section 307, & 148 or 307/149, I.P.C. Having considered the findings arrived at by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the grounds on which the trial court based its order acquitting the respondents were reasonable and plausible and that was the only view which could have been taken by the trial court and they cannot be disloged by disturbing the acquittal even if two views are possible after re-appraisal of the evidence which is not the case in hand here also. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the acquittal, after lapse of ten years also. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The respondents are on bail and need not surrender. The record be sent back.Appeal dismissed.