Rajasthan HC acquits two men convicted 18 years ago after prosecution witnesses turn hostile

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted two men convicted eighteen years ago for assaulting a government doctor, holding that their conviction could not be sustained once the material independent witnesses turned hostile and the trial court itself had acquitted the co-accused on the very same evidence.

Justice Kuldeep Mathur, allowing a criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC, set aside the judgment and order dated Jun 28, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, which had convicted the appellants, Sita Ram and Ram Ratan, under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC, while acquitting two other co-accused persons on the same set of evidence.

The prosecution case, arising out of an FIR registered on Mar 9, 2005 at Police Station Mundawa, was that the complainant, Dr. Tilak Raj Khatri, a Medical Officer at a government hospital, was attacked at the hospital gate by six persons, including the two appellants, after an inquiry was made about his wife, Dr. Suman. He was allegedly dragged to a nearby medical store and assaulted again before the accused fled the scene.

Following investigation, charges were framed against the appellants and the co-accused under Sections 332, 353, 356, 365 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses during trial, and the trial court eventually convicted and sentenced the present appellants under Sections 332 and 353/34 IPC, while acquitting co-accused Aidan Ram and Mahesh Kumar.

Counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court’s findings were perverse and arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence, pointing out that the co-accused had been acquitted on the very same evidence used to convict the appellants. It was argued that the case stemmed from prior enmity, as appellant No. 1 had earlier complained about the complainant’s work ethics, and that eight independent witnesses examined by the prosecution had turned hostile and did not support its case. The only witness supporting the prosecution version was Dr. Suman, the complainant’s wife, whose testimony, counsel argued, was that of an interested witness and could not safely be relied upon. Counsel further submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise dated Sep 3, 2022, and that the complainant had no objection to it being taken into account.

The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, on being queried by the Court, were unable to dispute that the material independent witnesses had turned hostile, or that the parties had compromised and amicably settled the dispute.

Examining the evidence, the Court observed:

“The conviction of the appellants substantially rests upon the testimony of the complainant and his wife, Dr. Suman. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the prosecution version has not received corroboration from any independent witness and where the learned trial Court itself acquitted the co-accused persons on the same set of evidence, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the present appellants.”

The Court further held:

“This Court also finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the evidence available on record does not inspire such confidence as would warrant upholding the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

The Court noted that the compromise between the parties further indicated an amicable settlement, though the appeal succeeded on merits independently of it. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated Jun 28, 2008 was set aside qua the appellants, and they were acquitted of the offences under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC by extending them the benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds stood discharged, and the trial court record was directed to be sent back forthwith.

Title: Sita Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 449/2008

Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:28940

Counsel for appellants: Mr. Vijay Bishnoi and Mr. Sachin Lohiya

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Narendra Singh, PP, with Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi for the complainant