Trial Court Ignored Testimonies Of Eyewitnesses Merely Due To Minor Contradictions: Rajasthan HC Court Sets Aside Acquittal In 1991 Murder Case
|The Rajasthan High Court set aside the acquittal in a 1991 murder case while observing that the trial court had ignored the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses merely on the count of some minor contradictions
The Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of the evidence and material available presented by the Prosecution. The appeal, which had been pending for nearly three decades, was filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal granted by the trial court.
A Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed, “This Court also observes that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal had clearly ignored the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, merely on count of some minor contradictions therein, and also ignored the other corroborative evidence produced on record by the prosecution, which is nothing but a patent error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal.”
PP Sameer Pareek appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Vinit Sanadhya represented the respondent.
According to the prosecution, the accused murdered his first wife by inflicting multiple blows to her head and neck with a Kassi (sharp weapon). The murder took place at a village located around eight kilometres from the Police Station, amidst ongoing marital discord between the accused and the victim.
According to the FIR filed by an eyewitness, he had witnessed the accused attacking the victim with a Kassi. The witnesses stated that they had been trying to bring the victim back to her paternal home, but the accused, enraged, prevented them from doing so and instead launched the fatal assault.
The prosecution submitted that the three eyewitnesses of the incident in question had clearly stated in their testimonies that the accused had murdered the deceased, but the Trial Court discarded their testimonies and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused.
The High Court stated that the power of interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is provided under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C, as per which, the Appellate Court can reverse the finding of the Trial Court and convict the accused and award the sentence, as per law.
The Court referred to the decision in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), wherein the Apex Court held, “In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
The Court stated that “it is revealed, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal, the learned Trial Court had omitted/misread the material evidence on record, including the testimonies of three eyewitnesses of the incident in question, recovery of Kassi (weapon of crime in question), injuries caused to the deceased, medical report as well as other evidence, which were sufficient to convict and sentence the accused-respondent for the crime in question.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “Thus, looking into the overall evidence and material on record the acquittal of respondent-accused under Section 302 IPC vide the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law, and therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellate-State is allowed, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: State Of Rajasthan v. Angrey Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:37083-DB)