Ratanlal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted of the

charges framed against them.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in ordering the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4. Prosecution had been

successful in establishing its case. From the testimony of PW-8 Sampat, PW-9 Krishna and PW-19 Ramesh, it was evident that Pankaj (since

deceased) aged about 10 years had been called by respondent No.4 in her house and thereafter, dead body of Pankaj was recovered after two days

from a well. Motive behind the incident was that mother of the deceased had given Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No.4 Ratni and when the said amount

was demanded back, respondent No.4 in connivance with other accused had committed the muder of Pankaj. Recovery of mattress was effected

from the well. The said mattress was blood stained and was having hair of the deceased.

Respondents No.2 to 4 had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 302, 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that

they had committed murder of Pankaj and had thereafter destroyed evidence to save themselves. Trial Court vied impugned order dated 25.09.2019

has ordered the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4.

It has been noticed by the Trial Court that recovery of the mattress was effected from the well and the prosecution had failed to connect the accused

with the said recovery. Moreover, the mattress was never sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination of the blood stains or the hair found on

it.

So far as last seen evidence is concerned, PW-9 Krishna deposed that on 08.08.2013 after school hours, he was going home alongwith Pankaj,

Ramesh and Sampat. Some dispute arose between them with regard to Toffees and due to this reason, Pankaj got upset and took the other route/path.

When Pankaj reached near the house of Chauthmal, a tempo was lying there. The moment, Pankaj reached near the tempo, they saw that Ratni had

called Pankaj inside the house, and thereafter, they went home and he came to know in the evening that Pankaj had not returned home. After 2-3

days, dead body of Pankaj was recovered from the well. The said witness in his cross-examination deposed that the route/path taken by Pankaj was

different than the one taken by them while going home.

FIR in the present case was lodged on 11.08.2013. In case, PW-9 Krishna had actually seen Pankaj going inside the house of Ratni, he would have

immediately informed the parents of Pankaj that he had seen Pankaj going in the house of Ratni. Moreover, PW-9 Krishna has stated that the

route/path taken by them was different than the one taken by Pankaj. In these circumstances, the statement of PW-9 Krishna is rendered doubtful to

the effect that Pankaj had been called by Ratni inside her house.

PW-8 Sampat has corroborated the statement of PW-9 Krishna. The said witness in his cross-examination deposed that he had disclosed to the police

that Ratni had called Pankaj inside her house, but the said fact was not mentioned in Exhibit-D-3 (his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C.). The said

witness was duly confronted with his statement Exhibit-D-3. Statement of this witness was recorded on 11.08.2013, whereas, the incident had

occurred on 08.08.2013. Statement of PW-8 Sampat is also rendered doubtful because in case, the said witness had actually seen Pankaj going inside

the house of Ratni, he would have informed the parents of Pankaj on the same day, so that further action could be taken as per law.

PW-19 Ramesh has deposed that on 08.08.2013, he was returning home from school alongwith Pankaj, Sampat and Krishna. Pankaj had left for his

home on a different way. He had seen Pankaj standing near the tempo, near the house of Prabhu and Chauthmal. Thus, so far as PW-19 is

concerned, he has not stated to the effect that he had seen Pankaj entering the house of Ratni (at her instance).

Learned Trial Court had, thus, rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the statements of PW-8 Sampat, PW-9 Krishna and PW-19 Ramesh

and had rightly disbelieved the circumstance of last seen set up by the prosecution.

Although, prosecution has alleged motive against respondents No.2 to 4 to the effect that mother of deceased had given Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.4

Ratni and on demand, Ratni had failed to return the said amount and due to this reason, murder had been committed. However, keeping in view the

fact that the circumstance of last seen and recovery had not been duly established by the prosecution, the conviction of the accused could not be

based merely on the alleged motive. The possibility that motive had been coined to strengthen the prosecution case cannot be ruled out.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are

possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various

judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its

extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-

appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition

on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in

favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent

unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court

should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of

acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to

both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire

evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with

only when there are ""compelling and substantial reasons"", for doing so. If the order is ""clearly unreasonable"", it is a compelling reason for interference.

When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of

ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed

The view taken by the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is a possible view and calls for no interference.

Dismissed.