[2025:RJ-JP:43389-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 538/1998 State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus 1. Prabhu son of Bhura (died) 2. Govinda Son of Chunya 3. Gangasahai son of Govinda (died) 4. Jagdish son of Bhurya 5. Bhagwanya son of Bhurya 6. Manphool son of Bhurya 7. Moolchand son of Bhurya 8. Ramdhan son of Jaidev 9. Ramkishore @ Kishore son of Jaidev All residents of Village Gole, P.S. Lalsot, District Dausa. ---Accused-Respondents Connected With D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 461/1996 Mool Chand son of Bhori Lal, Resident of Gole, District Dausa. ---Complainant-Petitioner Versus 1. Prabhu son of Bhura (Died) 2. Govinda Son of Chunya 3. Gangasahai son of Govinda (Died) 4. Bhagwanya son of Bhurya 5. Jagdish son of Bhurya 6. Manphool son of Bhurya 7. Moolchand son of Bhurya 8. Ramdhan son of Jaidev 9. Ramkishore @ Kishore son of Jaidev All residents of Village Gole, P.S. Lalsot, District Dausa. ---Accused-Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Sarwat Alam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Raj, Adv. for [2025:RJ-JP:43389-DB] (2 of 5) [CRLA-538/1998] Mr. Praveen Balwada, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 29/10/2025 (Per: PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.) 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report dated 18.08.2025 furnished by the SHO, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa, which is taken on record. 2. As per the report, which is accompanied with the report of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Dausa and death certificates of Ganga Sahay Mahawer and Govinda Mahawer, the accused- respondent No.1 Prabhu Son of Bhura, accused-respondent No.2 Govinda Son of Chunya and accused-respondent No.3 Gangasahai Son of Govinda have expired. Therefore, the present appeal and revision petition stand abated in respect of them. 3. The office shall put an appropriate note on the cause title of the memo of appeal and the memo of criminal revision. 4. This criminal appeal and revision are filed by the State and complainant Moolchand respectively against the impugned judgment dated 07.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Dausa in Sessions case No.30/1995, whereby, respondents Prabhu, Govind, Gangasahay, Jagdish, Manfool, Ramkishore and Ramkishan were acquitted under Sections 147, 302, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Succinctly stated the facts are that PW-2 Moolchand submitted a written report, exhibit P-3 before the Station House Officer Lalsot alleging that his brother Ghanshyam was called by [2025:RJ-JP:43389-DB] (3 of 5) [CRLA-538/1998] Prabhu, Bhagwanya, Moolchand, Gangasahay, Govinda at night before the Panchayat and later on, he was tied with a tree and accused-respondents have beaten him to death and on that report, a case under Sections 302 and 147 IPC was registered and chargesheet was submitted before the concerned Court. The case was committed to the Trial Court. The Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 07.08.1996, acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, and in the alternative, Section 302/149 of the IPC. 5. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the Trial Court has erred in arriving at the findings and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record including the testimony of the eye witnesses, i.e., PW-2 Moolchand, PW-4 Sevaram and PW-5 Badri. It is also contended that all the eye witnesses in their deposition before the learned Trial Court have categorically stated that the respondents, after beating Ghanshyam, caused his death. The statements of the witnesses above have been wrongly discarded; therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside, and the respondent may be convicted and sentenced accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent justified the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has rightly discarded the statements of PW-2 Moolchand, PW-4 Sevaram and PW-5 Badri as they have gone beyond the prosecution's story. In their deposition before the learned Trial Court, it is stated that the respondents, after beating the deceased Ghanshyam, hanged him on a tree. In contrast, initially, the prosecution's story was that the respondents, after [2025:RJ-JP:43389-DB] (4 of 5) [CRLA-538/1998] tying him to a tree, have beaten him resulting in his death. It is also contended that in the post-mortem report, no ligature marks were found, and the concerned doctor, PW-7 Hariprasad Sharma, has not corroborated the allegation that the deceased was hanged. The other eye witnesses, PW-8 Gangasahay and PW-9 Ramgopal, have also not corroborated the prosecution's story. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. 7. Heard and perused the material available on record. 8. In the written report, exhibit P-3 submitted by the so-called eye witness, PW-2 Moolchand, it is stated that the deceased Ghanshyam was tied to a tree and thereafter beaten to death by the respondents. However, in the deposition before the Court, the material eye witnesses PW-2 Moolchand, PW-4 Sevaram and PW-5 Badri have gone beyond the prosecution's story and stated that the deceased was hanged with a rope and was also beaten by the respondents. It was never the prosecution story that the deceased Ghanshyam was hanged with a rope to a tree, which resulted in his death. It is also relevant to mention here that in the written report, exhibit P-3, PW-2 Moolchand stated that S/Shri Nanga, Cheetar, Shyoram, and Gopal have witnessed the incident. The names of the eyewitnesses, PW-4 Sevaram and PW-5 Badri, were not stated in the written report. It is also pertinent to point out that the statement of witness PW-4 Sevaram was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., Exhibit D-2 on 15.12.1994. The inquest report of deceased Ghanshyam was prepared on 01.12.1994 and Sevaram has been shown as one of the witnesses. The prosecution could not explain the delay in recording the statement [2025:RJ-JP:43389-DB] (5 of 5) [CRLA-538/1998] of witness PW-4 Sevaram. Further, in the inquest report, it has been categorically opined by the witnesses that the deceased was tied by hands to a tree and was, thereafter, beaten. However, PW- 2 Moolchand, PW-4 Sevaram and PW-5 Badri, in their deposition, have not stated that the deceased was tied to a tree with a rope and thereafter was beaten. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the statement of the witnesses and acquitted the respondents under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 149 and 147 of the IPC. It is also pertinent to note that the scope of interference in the appeal against the acquittal is minimal, unless it is proven that the Trial Court has gone beyond the record or committed any perversity in appreciating the evidence. 9. Therefore, considering the above, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal as well as in the revision petition; hence, the same are dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Ashwani/Keshav/-51-52