Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 465 (RAJ)

Mangal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-11

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Complainant petitioner has filed his revision petition against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 185/1997 whereby the accused non petitioner No. 2 has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 2. On 6.4.1997, the complainant Mangal Singh lodged a written report at police station M.I.A. Alwar (Ex.P3) wherein it was alleged that on 6.4.1997 he was returning from his agricultural farm and when he reached Delhi Road, one person stopped him and told him that he has been called by police. He started beating and abused him. It was also alleged that Pissu and Jagan sons of Harnath were also accompanied with him 6-7 other persons were also there, they snatched Rs. 895/- from his pocket. On the basis of this information, police registered a case under sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against accused non petitioner No. 2 for the offences under sections 323 and 341 IPC only. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Satish, PW-2 Mahaveer Prasad, PW3 Mengel Singh, PW4 Raghuveer Singh, PW5 PW6 Ratan Singh, PW7 Dr. Amar Singh and PW8 Bhagwandas and produced documentary evidence Ex.P. 1-4. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the charges and stated that no incident took place and due to political rivalry, a false case has been registered against him. In defence DW1 Jagan was examined. Ex.D-1-2, the statements of Narain Singh and Chunnilal recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. were also produced. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide is impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the accused non petitioner No. 2 from the charges levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt. 4. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any leave to appeal under f. action 378 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal. However, complainant/Petitioner has fed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of acquittal of the accused non petitioner No. 2 from the offences under section 323 and 341 IPC. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. However, complainant/Petitioner has fed this revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of acquittal of the accused non petitioner No. 2 from the offences under section 323 and 341 IPC. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi AIR 1998 SC 990 has observed that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of the private party, even though the State may not have thought fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is some defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 6. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has right to file revision against the order of acquittal or revision petition is maintainable even at the instance of the complainant. 7. The question in the present case is as to whether the present case is ore of the exceptional cases wherein this court should interfere by exercising the power under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainnaswamy v. State of Andhra. Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788 while dealing as to what would constitute such "exceptional cases" has observed that it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. However some cases were indicated which would justify the High Court in interfering with the findings of acquittal in revision petition. These cases were described where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the cases, but, has still acquitted the accused or where the trial court has wrongly shut out the evidence which the prosecution wished to produce or where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can be held to be cases of exceptional nature. 9. These and other cases of similar nature can be held to be cases of exceptional nature. 9. I have examined the impugned order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the trial court and also the record of the trial court which was summoned by this court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are contradictions in the findings of the learned trial court. It is pointed out that in para 9 of the impugned order there is reference about 6-7 persons who were there at the time of occurrence and who inflicted injuries, whereas in the first information report there is reference about 6-7 persons. I have perused the first information report (Ex.P-3) which clearly shows that there is reference that 6-7 persons were there in addition to Pissu and Jagan sons of Harnath, therefore, I do not see any contradiction in the findings of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at another place in the impugned judgment the learned trial court has given a reference of only one person at the time of occurrence whereas at another place he has given 6-7 persons. This fact is not correct. No other serious material contradiction in the findings of the trial court has been pointed out. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Swaroop (Supra), it is clear that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal only in exceptional cases where there is some defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of point of law. The learned trial court had jurisdiction to try the case. The material evidence has been discussed and the learned trial court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused while acquitting the accused non petitioner No. 2 from the charges levelled against him. I myself examined the prosecution evidence in detail and also the entire record of the trial court. I do not find any defect in procedure or manifest error on point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, I do not think this case to be fit one to interfere in revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal consequently the revision petition is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******