Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State vs Mahaveer Singh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14338]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 683/1998
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mahaveer Singh S/o Ramchandra
2. Surendra Kr. S/o Ram Chandra R/o Rodawali District
Hanumangarh
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED 05/03/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred assailing the
judgment of acquittal dated 25.06.1998 rendered by the learned
ACJM, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 588/1996 (16/1994),
whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the
charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 326/34 IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State;
none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents-
accused. The impugned judgment, as well as the entire record
of the case, has been meticulously perused.
3. The prosecution case, in succinct terms, emanates from an
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (2 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
incident alleged to have occurred on 27.05.1994 at about 8:25
PM concerning a dispute over irrigation water. The complainant-
injured Rampratap reported that he, along with his brothers,
had separate shares of agricultural land, and that irrigation
water was being supplied to his field as per a scheduled turn.
3.1. It was alleged that during his turn of irrigation, the
respondents-accused Surendra Kumar and Mahavir, acting in
concert, unlawfully diverted and interrupted the flow of water
towards their own field. When the complainant attempted to
restore the water flow, both accused persons allegedly assaulted
him with sharp-edged agricultural implements (kassi), inflicting
injuries on his hands and body. Upon raising alarm, the accused
fled the scene. The injured was thereafter transported by his
son and relatives to the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh,
where he was medically examined.
3.2. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR
came to be registered for offences under Sections 323, 324, 341
and 430 IPC, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet was submitted. The case was committed and subsequently
tried by the competent Court.
3.3. During trial, charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and
326/34 IPC were framed against the accused, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
several witnesses, including the injured complainant, his son,
the medical officer, and other witnesses. The accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (3 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
allegations. No defence evidence was adduced. Vide the
judgment impugned, the respondents have been acquitted,
hence the instant appeal.
4. Upon a comprehensive and analytical appreciation of the
evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded findings
which are both cogent and compelling, warranting no
interference.
4.1 At the outset, it is a well-settled principle that in an appeal
assailing a judgment of acquittal, the superior court must
exercise circumspection, restraint, and judicial sobriety, and
ought to remain slow and reluctant in interfering with the
findings recorded by the court below. Interference is not to be
undertaken in a routine or casual manner, but only in those
exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrably evident that
the impugned judgment suffers from patent illegality, is in
derogation of settled statutory provisions, or has been rendered
in complete disregard or non-consideration of the material
evidence available on record.
4.2. It is equally trite that where the court of first instance has
exercised its discretion upon a proper and judicious appreciation
of evidence, the superior court ought not to supplant its own
view merely because an alternative interpretation is conceivable.
The discretionary jurisdiction, when exercised in accordance
with law and upon sound evaluation of facts, commands
deference and ought not to be disturbed unless the conclusions
drawn are manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or unsustainable in the
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (4 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
eyes of law. Thus, the appellate forum is not envisaged as a
platform for re-appreciation of evidence in substitution of
findings already arrived at, but rather as a supervisory
mechanism to ensure that justice has not been vitiated by
illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
4.3. The trial Court noted that the independent witnesses,
namely PW-4 Ramchandra, PW-5 Surjaram, and PW-6
Banwarilal, resiled from their earlier statements and were
declared hostile. Their testimonies failed to lend any
corroborative support to the prosecution narrative, thereby
eroding the substratum of the case.
4.4. The prosecution case thus rested predominantly upon the
testimony of the injured witness PW-1 Rampratap and his son
PW-2 Balram. The trial Court, while not discarding their
evidence outright, subjected it to careful scrutiny owing to their
interested and related status. It was observed that PW-2
Balram, being the son of the complainant, was a partisan
witness, and his testimony required independent corroboration,
which was conspicuously absent. Furthermore, the statements
of these witnesses were found to be marred by material
inconsistencies and contradictions, rendering their version
unreliable and unworthy of implicit acceptance.
4.5. The medical evidence, as deposed by PW-3 Dr. Rajendra
Kumar Gupta, also did not conclusively fortify the prosecution
case. The doctor admitted that one of the injuries could be
caused either by a sharp-edged weapon or by a fall, and he was
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (5 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
unable to definitively opine regarding the specific weapon used.
Such equivocation in medical testimony diluted the evidentiary
value of the prosecution case.
4.6. A significant infirmity noted by the trial Court was the
unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR. No plausible
or satisfactory explanation was furnished by the prosecution for
this delay. Moreover, the failure to produce the FIR before the
Court further cast a serious shadow of doubt over the
authenticity and genesis of the prosecution story.
4.7. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
presumption of innocence stands reinforced once an order of
acquittal is recorded. An appellate court, while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal, is required to exercise restraint and
may interfere only when the findings of the Trial Court are
perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on misreading of
evidence.
4.8. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a reasonably possible
and legally sustainable view, the same ought not to be disturbed
merely because another view is also possible. The Trial Court,
having had the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses, is entitled to due deference.
4.9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka has reiterated that interference with an order of
acquittal is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality or
perversity. The principles enunciated therein emphasize that
where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (6 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
must prevail, and a plausible view taken by the Trial Court ought
not to be supplanted. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment
encapsulates the doctrine in the following terms:
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based
on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned
as guilty…
(i) Appreciation of evidence must be holistic and
comprehensive;
(ii) Selective or truncated evaluation may itself
occasion miscarriage of justice;
(iii) If two views are possible, the one favourable to
the accused must ordinarily prevail;
(iv) A legally plausible view of the Trial Court cannot
be supplanted merely because another view is
possible;
(v) In reversing an acquittal, the appellate Court must
deal with all reasons assigned by the Trial Court;
(vi) Conversion of acquittal into conviction requires
demonstration of manifest illegality, perversity, or
patent error in the Trial Court’s approach.”
Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled principles and
upon a thorough scrutiny of the record, this Court finds no
compelling reason to take a view different from that taken by
the learned Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence appears to
be judicious, comprehensive, and in accordance with law.
4.9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned trial Court has undertaken a
judicious and well-reasoned evaluation of the evidence, and its
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14338] (7 of 7) [CRLA-683/1998]
findings are neither perverse nor contrary to law. The view
taken by the trial Court is a plausible and legally sustainable
one.
5. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to
be, and is hereby, dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated
25.06.1998 rendered by the learned ACJM Hanumangarh in
Criminal Case No.588/1996 (16/1994), is affirmed.
6. Record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
109-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 02:32:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 04:57:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
