DEVARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal, instituted under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the CrPC"), has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dtd. 12/10/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 40/2021. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeal are that, on 6/4/2021, the complainant, Devaram, submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) before the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, alleging that his sister, Anasi Devi, was married to the respondent-accused, Bhutaram, nearly four decades ago. He stated that the matrimonial relationship had been discordant and that the accused had, on an earlier occasion, assaulted Anasi, causing a fracture in her arm. According to the complainant, on the night of 1/4/2021, Anasi Devi and the accused were present in their house situated at a short distance from the complainants residence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned acquittal is founded on conjectures and mechanical rejection of material evidence, suffers from patent perversity. The learned trial Court erred in discarding the prosecution case merely because the eyewitnesses resiled, ignoring that their statements under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC, being public documents admissible under Sec. 80 of the Evidence Act, carried intrinsic reliability. The circumstantial evidence, including recoveries from the true place of occurrence, the Mauka Naksha, prior conduct of the accused, and the false defence of an alleged fall from a staircase that did not exist, remained wholly unshaken. The Court below overlooked the mandate of Sec. 7 of the Evidence Act and failed to appreciate the chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably to homicidal death. The judgment thus reflects misdirection in law and misreading of evidence, warranting its reversal and conviction of the respondent under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC.