Case: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI CHIRANJILAL

N. Santosh Hegde and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ. 1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan made in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1985 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the Respondent-herein (Appellant before it) and acquitted him of the charges and conviction awarded by the sessions court. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are that on 31st July, 1984, prosecution states that one Ratan Lal committed the murder of Chiranjilal at about 6.30 p.m. in front of the house of the deceased. The said incident, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by Tara Chand-P.W. 4, who is the uncle of the deceased and Phool Chand-P.W. 5, who is the brother of the deceased. The complaint-Ex. P-4 was lodged on the very same day and the investigation was conducted by Shri Ran Singh, S.H.O., police station, Pillani. 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/s 302, I.P.C. against the Respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, apart from examining P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 has also examined Ram Chandra, P.W. 6, who is the father of the deceased and has also relied upon the seizure of blood-stained clothes from the accused and also the blood-stained knife. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution, convicted the Respondent for an offence u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to serve imprisonment for life. 4. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and conviction, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan. 5. The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence of star witnesses of the prosecution, namely, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 cannot be accepted on its face value and without any further corroboration primarily on the ground that they were very closely related to the deceased. P.W. 5 was direct brother of the deceased while P.W. 4 was the brother of the father of the deceased. The High Court, while considering the evidence of these witnesses, came to the conclusion that even according to the prosecution version, more than 10 to 14 people were present near the well where the incident took place where, according to P.W. 5, he was playing cards in their company. Non-examination of these witnesses was considered fatal for the prosecution case. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 5 was not accepted by the High Court based on his own statement wherein he had stated that he and P.W. 4 had carried the injured, who subsequently died, to their house when he was still bleeding. The prosecution had failed to produce the blood-stained clothes of these witnesses, therefore, that also caused a substantial doubt in the case of the prosecution. Further, the High Court observed that even though the prosecution had admitted that there were elderly women, who witnessed the incident, they were also not examined by the police nor their statements were recorded nor were they cited as witnesses in the case. The High Court found fault with the prosecution for not giving any reasonable explanation for non-examination of these witnesses. 6. In regard to the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused, the High Court noticed that the accused though was arrested on 1st August, 1984, the said clothes were actually seized only on 3rd August, 1984. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to explain this delay which has caused a doubt on the seizure of the clothes. High Court not being convinced about the recovery of knife (Recovery Memo. Ex. P. 17) did not place reliance on this recovery also. The High Court, on re-consideration of the entire material on record, has come to the conclusion that it will not be safe to rely upon the prosecution case, and hence, allowed the appeal. 7. We, sitting in appeal, would not like to re-appreciate the evidence unless we are convinced that the appreciation of evidence of the High Court has been perverse. Having not found any such fault in the judgment of the High Court, we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. We, sitting in appeal, would not like to re-appreciate the evidence unless we are convinced that the appreciation of evidence of the High Court has been perverse. Having not found any such fault in the judgment of the High Court, we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference.