Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1366 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Neel Kanth

2005-05-09

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal has been filed by the State against the Judgment and order dated 14.03.1988 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhinmal in Criminal Case No.425/1983 whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charge framed under Sections 452, 324 and 323/34 IPC. 2. The leave to appeal was granted against the accused respondent on 29.07.1988. 3. In brief , the prosecution story is that PW. 11 Devi Chand son of Shankar Lal submitted a written report in the Police Station, Jaswantpura, District Jalore. It was inter-alia stated in First Information Report that on 24.07.1983 at about 6:00 P.M. when the Devi Chand was setting at his shop, accused respondent Neel Kanth along with others came armed with open knife and inflicted injuries on him. 4. After usual investigation, the matter came for trial before the learned trial Court who framed charges against the accused respondents under Sections 452, 324 and 323/34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and tendered some documents in evidence. After close of the evidence, statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused respondents stated that on account of enmity, they were falsely implicated in the case. In defence, DW. 1 Basanti has been examined. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides vide its Judgment and order dated 14.03.1988 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record. None has given appearance on behalf of the accused respondents. 7. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that in the case there has been proper appreciation of the evidence and the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. 9. The learned trial Court found descripencies of material nature in the evidence led by the prosecution. The trial court further found that if the medical evidence is considered then the version of the eye-witnesses cannot be said to be a true version of the incident. The learned trial Court discussed the evidence in detail. 10. 9. The learned trial Court found descripencies of material nature in the evidence led by the prosecution. The trial court further found that if the medical evidence is considered then the version of the eye-witnesses cannot be said to be a true version of the incident. The learned trial Court discussed the evidence in detail. 10. It has also come on record that there was some dispute regarding land between the parties and a cross-case was also filed in the matter. In this case, the incident is more than three decades old and the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452, 324 and 323/34, IPC. I do not find any reason to take a different view than the one which has been taken by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused persons particularly when the impugned Judgment has assigned cogent reasons. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Parveen Kumar 2004 AIR SCW 6897, has observed that mere fact that on basis of same evidence another view is possible, it would not be a ground for setting aside an order of acquittal. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, even if two views are possible regarding appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, then, the view which finds favour with the accused is to be considered. 13. As discussed above, it is a matter of more than 30 years old and convincing reasons have been assigned while passing the order of the acquittal. In my humble opinion, it is not a fit case where the State appeal should be accepted. 14. In view of the forgoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the State and same deserves to be dismissed after confirming the Judgment delivered by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 425/1983. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the State stands dismissed.