SUBHASH JAIN @ SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of the order of conviction and acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Sriganganagar. Fifteen persons were prosecuted for murder and other offences. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that there is no common object proved by the prosecution and held three of the accused persons responsible for individual acts, which amounted to a crime and proceeded to convict them individually of the offences, which according to the learned Judge were proved against the accused persons. Three appeals by three accused persons are, therefore, against their conviction. The fourth appeal is by the State against the acquittal of all these persons in so far as their acquittal under section 302 Penal Code is concerned, since all the appeals arise out of the same incident, all these appeals were heard and considered together. They are being disposed of by the common order.

(2.) It is obvious from the scrutiny of the evidence on record as also the grounds herein that the learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record. has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove formation of any unlawful assembly to make any offence in furtherance of the common object to that unlawful assembly. The order of acquittal requires no interference. The findings recorded by the learned Judge are not perverse. There is sufficient evidence on the record to support these findings and consequently, there is no reason to interference with the finding of acquittal.

(3.) In so far as the appeals against conviction are concerned, several of the findings of the learned Judge are required to be accepted. If those findings of the learned Judge are accepted, it is evident that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions. It is obvious that (i) the FIR is tutored; (ii) the venue of the spot of occurrence is changed; (iii) there is no explanation of the injuries on the body of the accused.