Case: State Of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh

that witness was present in the field near the place of occurrence, there was no occasion as to why she would not have seen the alleged actual occurrence. If the accused committed the offence he must have stayed at the place of occurrence for a very long time as it is alleged that the accused had amputated both feet of the deceased and a pair of silver anklets of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of hands, one pair of silver ear-rings and one golden nose-ring (nath) were allegedly taken away by him. When the allegation is that of amputation of both the feet by use of a Khurpi the same must have taken considerable time during the course of which the said witness (PW-4) would have seen the occurrence itself. There is also no explanation from PW4 as to why she turned her back when she saw accused washing him hands. She does not state that she had seen the deceased with the accused nor does she state that she had seen the accused smeared with mud. 20. There is not even a single statement coming from any of the witnesses that they had seen any water being smeared with blood of the deceased or any soil of the field being smeared with human blood. Some of the witnesses have stated that accused was smeared with mud when he was returning from the field whereas Mathura (PW-4) does not say so. She only states that she saw him running from the fields. It is also not known why the said witness had turned her back towards the accused only because the accused was washing his hands. If accused was washing his hands as stated by Mathura (PW-4) there is no likelihood of body of the accused being smeared with mud as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses (PWs 7 & 8). 21. The learned trial court also held accused guilty because the strap of wristwatch was found near the dead body of the deceased, which allegedly belong to the accused. On scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any such direct evidence that the said strap of wristwatch belongs to the watch of the accused. None of the witnesses stated that such strap of wristwatch belongs to the accused nor any wristwatch has been recovered from the accused. So far the time of occurrence is concerned there is also no unanimity and the evidence is scanty regarding the time of occurrence. In our considered opinion, the evidence regarding commission of offence by the accused in the field and also amputation of legs of the deceased is neither cogent nor reliable, and therefore, those circumstances cannot be relied upon for basing conviction of the respondent. 22. So far the circumstance about the recovery of ornaments is concerned, the star witness in that regard is PW-20. The said ornaments were recovered at the instance of accused from the custody and possession of PW-20. We have very carefully analysed the evidence of PW-20 so as to find out the credibility of the said witness. He had stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused came to him saying that he wanted to sell the jewellery of his house. The said witness, however, stated that they did not purchase such jewellery, which was, however, seized later on from him. He stated in his cross-examination that they do the business for making new ornaments from the old ornaments. He also stated that the said jewellery was not for their use and hence they refused to purchase. He also stated that Naresh/accused himself is a gold smith hence he used to come to him earlier also. He also stated that Naresh asked him to keep the jewellery and told that he would come back soon, and therefore, he kept the said jewellery and that on the same day accused took away his ornaments. If the accused has taken away the jewellery on the same day then how could the police recover the same jewellery from the custody and possession of PW-20. Besides, since he had stated that he would not purchase the jewellery there was no occasion for Naresh to keep that jewellery with PW-20. In the disclosure statements the accused stated that he sold the jewellery to Ram Chandra Saraf whereas the same was recovered from PW-20. On scrutinizing the evidence, we find that the aforesaid recovery of jewellery is shrouded in a total mystery as it was not recovered from the place and person to whom allegedly accused sold. 23. So far recovery of Khurpi is concerned the same admittedly did not contain any bloodstains on it and it was recovered from an open place. Since there was no bloodstain on it, the police also did not send it for chemical examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said weapon was used for committing murder of the deceased. There could be some suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence but the same cannot in any manner conclusively prove and establish that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Unless and until we are satisfied that the evidence adduced clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of the accused we cannot pass an order of conviction by setting aside the order of acquittal. 24. The view that is taken by the High Court is found to be a plausible view, and therefore, the benefit must always go to the accused and not to the prosecution. If the prosecution wants to prove the fact, the same must be proved by leading evidence, which is reliable and trustworthy, which pinpoints and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. This is not a case where we can safely hold that the evidence led was trustworthy and conclusively establishes that it is the accused only, who had committed the offence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]19. When we examine the present case in the light of the background of the aforesaid legal principles, we find that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stands proved against the accused leading to a definite conclusion that it was the accused, who had committed the offence. It has come on evidence that deceased went towards the field on 12.08.1993 at about 3 oclock and that accused Naresh also went to the field with ain his hand. However, such a statement appears not to have been made before the police and the same was found to be an improvement by the High Court and recorded so in the Judgment. Mathura) has stated in her deposition that she had gone to thefor feeding the cattle. She has also stated that when she was sitting at the field for drinking water to cattle, she saw accused Naresh was running towards the village and that accused was having awith him and also one, she stated that she had seen the accused sitting at theand that she had turned her back towards accused/Naresh because accused was washing his hands. If that witness was present in the field near the place of occurrence, there was no occasion as to why she would not have seen the alleged actual occurrence. If the accused committed the offence he must have stayed at the place of occurrence for a very long time as it is alleged that the accused had amputated both feet of the deceased and a pair of silver anklets of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of hands, one pair of silverg (nath) were allegedly taken away by him. When the allegation is that of amputation of both the feet by use of athe same must have taken considerable time during the course of which the said witness) would have seen the occurrence itself. There is also no explanation from PW4 as to why she turned her back when she saw accused washing him hands. She does not state that she had seen the deceased with the accused nor does she state that she had seen the accused smeared with mud20. There is not even a single statement coming from any of the witnesses that they had seen any water being smeared with blood of the deceased or any soil of the field being smeared with human blood. Some of the witnesses have stated that accused was smeared with mud when he was returning from the field whereas Mathura) does not say so. She only states that she saw him running from the fields. It is also not known why the said witness had turned her back towards the accused only because the accused was washing his hands. If accused was washing his hands as stated by Mathura) there is no likelihood of body of the accused being smeared with mud as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses (PWs 7 & 8)21. The learned trial court also held accused guilty because the strap of wristwatch was found near the dead body of the deceased, which allegedly belong to the accused. On scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any such direct evidence that the said strap of wristwatch belongs to the watch of the accused. None of the witnesses stated that such strap of wristwatch belongs to the accused nor any wristwatch has been recovered from the accused. So far the time of occurrence is concerned there is also no unanimity and the evidence is scanty regarding the time of occurrence. In our considered opinion, the evidence regarding commission of offence by the accused in the field and also amputation of legs of the deceased is neither cogent nor reliable, and therefore, those circumstances cannot be relied upon for basing conviction of the respondent22. So far the circumstance about the recovery of ornaments is concerned, the star witness in that regard is. The said ornaments were recovered at the instance of accused from the custody and possession of. We have very carefully analysed the evidence of0 so as to find out the credibility of the said witness. He had stated in hisf that the accused came to him saying that he wanted to sell the jewellery of his house. The said witness, however, stated that they did not purchase such jewellery, which was, however, seized later on from him. He stated in hisn that they do the business for making new ornaments from the old ornaments. He also stated that the said jewellery was not for their use and hence they refused to purchase. He also stated that Naresh/accused himself is a gold smith hence he used to come to him earlier also. He also stated that Naresh asked him to keep the jewellery and told that he would come back soon, and therefore, he kept the said jewellery and that on the same day accused took away his ornaments. If the accused has taken away the jewellery on the same day then how could the police recover the same jewellery from the custody and possession of. Besides, since he had stated that he would not purchase the jewellery there was no occasion for Naresh to keep that jewellery with. In the disclosure statements the accused stated that he sold the jewellery to Ram Chandra Saraf whereas the same was recovered from. On scrutinizing the evidence, we find that the aforesaid recovery of jewellery is shrouded in a total mystery as it was not recovered from the place and person to whom allegedly accused sold23. So far recovery ofis concerned the same admittedly did not contain any bloodstains on it and it was recovered from an open place. Since there was no bloodstain on it, the police also did not send it for chemical examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said weapon was used for committing murder of the deceased. There could be some suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence but the same cannot in any manner conclusively prove and establish that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Unless and until we are satisfied that the evidence adduced clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of the accused we cannot pass an order of conviction by setting aside the order of acquittal24. The view that is taken by the High Court is found to be a plausible view, and therefore, the benefit must always go to the accused and not to the prosecution. If the prosecution wants to prove the fact, the same must be proved by leading evidence, which is reliable and trustworthy, which pinpoints and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. This is not a case where we can safely hold that the evidence led was trustworthy and conclusively establishes that it is the accused only, who had committed the offence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal.