SHARMA, J. - (1.) IT is well settled that in a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubts and the requirements of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. Although, the Court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence adduced in the case and the material placed on record. In the instant case we have to adjudge as to whether the charges made against the appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the finding of the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 and 447 IPC is based on reliable evidence.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on February 2, 2000 at 1. 30 AM the informant Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 10) at Police Station Baran to the effect that on February 1, 2000 at 5. 30 PM while his elder son Chandra Mohan had been to their garden of Guava, Sanjay and Mahendra came armed with Gandasi and Dharia and inflicted blows on the person of Chandra Mohan. After given beating they fled away. On account of injuries Chandra Mohan died on the spot. On that report a case under Sections 447 and 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation the police filed charge sheet against Sanjay and Purshottam and exonerated Mahendra. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. Charges under Sections 447 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: Impose a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer ten days simple imprisonment. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and with the assistance of the learned counsel we have gone through the evidence on record. Death of deceased Chandra Mohan was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per postmortem report (Ex. P. 12) he received following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound 10 x 2cm x bone deep transversally over chin at lower margin mandible. 2. Incised wound 2 1/2 x 1 cm x bone deep 2. 5 cm below It. angle of mouth. Transverse in direction (corner) 3. Incised: curved 6 x 2 1/2 cm x bone deep at medial canthus of lt. eye to supra orbital place Lt. 4. 6 x 2 cm x bone deep vertically just 2. 0 cm in front of Lt. ear. 5. Swelling all over the face and forehead. 6. Bruise 5 x 1 1/2 cm antra aspect of neck. 7. Abrasion 2 x 2 cm over manubrium at sternum. 8. Abrasion 5 x 4cm epigestric region. 9.Bruise 10 x 2 cm obliquely Lt. side thorax 8 cm below Lt. nipple. 10.Bruise 5 x 4 cm Lt. shoulder. In the opinion of Dr. Pratap Singh Yadav (PW. 14) the cause of death was traumatic and hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries of face. The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) and Sunabai (PW. 9) Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) in his deposition stated that on the day of incident around 5. 30 PM while he along with his wife Sunabai and son Chandra Mohan were keeping a watch on their garden of Guava, Sanjay, Purshottam and Mahendra came over there. Sanjay was armed with Gandasi, whereas Purshottam and Mahendra had Dharias. All the three belaboured Chandra Mohan and started inflicting blows on his person. Sanjay gave blow with axe on his head, whereas Purshottam inflicted Dharia blows on his neck and Mahendra caused injury with Dharia on the back side of head. As a result of injuries Chandra Mohan died on the spot. Dhanna Lal in his cross examination however admitted that he and his wife Sunabai informed the Collector in writing that the investigation of the case was not fairly conducted and the Investigating Officer had deliberately left Hemraj. Khemraj, Ram Narayan and Ram Dayal, who were the actual assailants. Testimony of Dhanna Lal gets corroboration from the evidence of Sunabai (PW. 9 ). The salient features emerge in the case are as under:- (i) Dhanna Lal in his cross examination admitted that when he asked the villagers to inform telephonically about the incident to the police he did not disclose the names of assailants; (ii) Ram Swaroop (PW. 4) deposed that police came in the garden around twelve in the night, till then it was not revealed as to who committed murder of Chandra Mohan; (iii) According to Dhanna Lal he disclosed the names of assailants to Ram Prasad (father in law of Chandra Mohan) but Ram Prasad (PW. 5) deposed that no body informed his about the murder of Chandra Mohan. While searching his cow he had gone to Mohan Lal Galav Sarpanch, who telephonically informed police about the murder of Chandra Mohan. Mohan Lal Galav (DW. 1) stated that Ram Prasad came to him and he telephoned police about the incident but names of assailants were not known to Ram Prasad; (iv) Dhanna Lal and Sunabai in their cross examination admitted that they had gone to the Collector to inform that real assailants were not nabbed by the police and investigation was not fair; (v) Dhanna Lal and Sunabai did not object the exoneration of accused Mahendra by Investigating Officer and they kept mum. At the trial both these witnesses however named Purshottam as the assailant but their evidence qua accused Purshottam was not relied upon by the trial Court and Purshottam stood acquitted. The acquittal of Purshottam has not been assailed by the State of Rajasthan; (vi) Om Prakash Tiwari, IO (PW. 16) stated that during investigation he came to know that Mahendra was not involved in the crime therefore charge sheet was not filed against Mahendra.
(3.) HAVING analysed the testimony of Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) and Sunabai (PW. 9) with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny we find their presence at the time of occurrence highly doubtful. On comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case we are of the view that the testimony of Dhanna Lal and Sunabai does not inspire confidence. We thus find that the prosecution has failed to establish charges under Sections 302 and 447 IPC against appellant Sanjay beyond reasonable doubt. As a result of above discussions, we allow the appeal and set aside the finding of conviction and sentence rendered vide judgment dated July, 26, 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. We acquit the appellant of the charges under Sections 447 and 302 IPC. The appellant Sanjay, who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. .;