STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated February 13,1974 where by, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Maniram of the offence Under Section 302, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the accused Hariram of the offence Under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC.

(2.) THE deceased Hazurasingh and the accused -persons Maniram and Hariram had their fields adjoining to each other towards south of their village Saharni. Some 20 -22 days prior to the occurrence, Hazurasingh put up a fencing over his field, which was dismantlted by the accused Maniram and others, which resulted in quarrel between Hazurasingh and Maniram. Since then, Maniram was annoyed with him. It is alleged that on 22 -6 -1972, Hazura Singh had gone to the field to work in the sugar -cane crop. His wife PW 1 Surjeet Kaur and son PW 2 Jaskaran aged about 13 years went to the field carrying meals for Hazurasingh. At about 12.30 p.m. all the three were returning from the held to their village. Hazurasingh was 1 kila ahead of Surjeetkaur and Jaskaran. When Hazurasingh reached near the water -course of the village, the accused Maniram and Hariram sons of Lalu Jat, were seen coming from the village, Maniram gave 'Lalkara' to Hazurasingh and thereafter he fired a shot from his pistol. Hariram was armed with a gun. He exhorted to kill Hazurasingh so that, enemy may not escape. Maniram, thereafter fired three. shots. Hazurasingh fell down and died. It is also alleged that PW 4 Sukhram was also present on the spot at some distance and had witnessed the occurrence The accused -persons, then, went towards the village. Both Surjeet Kaur and Jaskaran first came to their house and then, Surjeet Kaur went to the house of Ramji, who was not at his house. PW 3 Ganpatram was present there to whom she narrated the occurrence. PW 5 Chhoturam and Patram were sent to the spot. Mst. Surjeet Kaur (PW 1) accompanied with Ganpatram went to the police station and she lodged the report (Ex. P 1) at the police station Tibi at 3 p.m. on the same day. PW 13 Nisar Ahmed, ASI, registered the case and visited the spot along with the Medical Officer, he prepared the site -plan (Ex.P2) and site -inspection note (Ex. P 14). He recovered empty cartridges (Article 5) vide memo Ex. P 6. Furd Surat Hal Lash (Ex. P 4) and Panchnama (Ex. P 3) were prepared. PW 6 Bhimsingh, SHO, arrested the accused Maniram on 29 -6 -1972 and recovered his licence of pistol (Article 1) and three empty cartridges from his possession. He prepared the arrest memo Ex. P 9 and the recovery memo Ex. P 10. The accused Hariram was arrested on 6 -2 -1972 and one rifle along with licence were seized from his possession. After spot investigation, investigation was conducted by Shri Bhimsingh, SHO. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. K.C. Mittal (PW 9) After completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet was presented against the accused -persons. The accused -persons pleaded not guilty to the charges with which they were charge -ed and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 Mst. Surjeet Kaur, PW 2 Jaskaran, PW 3 Ganpatram, PW4 Sukhram, PW3 Chhotu Singh Constable (who carried the sealed packets to Jaipur), PW 6 Bhimsingh, SHO., PW 7 Ramchandra Constable (incharge Malkhana, Police Line, Kotwali), PW 8 Jaswantsingh, Constable (who carried the sealed packets to the office of the Expert), PW 9 Dr. K,C. Mittal, PW 10 Maniram Constable (incharge Malkhana), Police Station, Tibi, PW11 Dr. G.R. Prasad, Ballistic Expert, PW 12 Amarsingh, Constable (who carried the sealed packets from police station to Ganganagar Police Lines and PW 13 Nisar Ahmed, ASI. The statements of the accused -persons were recorded. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments, acquitted both the accused -persons with which they were charged. The learned Sessions Judge did not place reliance on the testimony of the eye -witnesses PW 1 Mst. Surjeet Kaur, PW 2 Jaskaran and PW 3 Sukhram. We shall be dealing with the reasonings given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for discrediting the testimony of the eye -witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also doubted the recovery of empty cartridges from the spot. Thus, the circumstantial evidence of recovery of the empty cartridge having been connected with the pistol, recovered from the possession of the accused Maniram, has also not been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently both the accused -persons were acquitted of the offences as it was found that no case is made out against them and they were given the benefit of doubt. Dis -satisfied with the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) IT may be stated that this is an appeal against the acquittal. From both the sides, case law has been referred on the point as to how this Court should exercise its power while hearing the appeal against an order of acquittal. What has been emphasised by Mr. S.N. Deedwania, learned counsel for the respondents, is where the view of the evidence taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is possible, then this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal even when this Court may be of the opinion to take a different view. We may refer here the rule or principles enunciated by the Supreme Court on this question. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 1980CriLJ812 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court followed the case of Sanwatsingh v. State of Rajasthan : 1961CriLJ766 , and Sheo Swamp v. Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 and relied on R.V. Fantle 1959 Cr.L.R 584, Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 (2) All. E.R. 372 and Khem Koran v. State of U.P. : 1974CriLJ1033 . Their Lordships explained the case of Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A.P. : 1971CriLJ422 and Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra : 1974CriLJ337 . O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that: