Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2212 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sampat Lal

2007-11-19

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.10.1984, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota in Case No. 417/84 for the offence under Section 408 IPC whereby he has acquitted the accused respondent. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under- 3. That on 8.3.1976,Ratan Lal PW. 1 lodged a First Information Report in Police Station Kotwali, Kota bearing FIR No. 46/76 under Section 408 IPC in which he stated that on 7.3.1996 in Kota Cooperative Consumer wholesale Store (Cloth Branch), there was a Goderage Almahar from which, Rs. 3829/-has stolen and the keys of the store were lying with the accused respondent. 4. The police has registered a case under the Section 380 IPC and started investigation. 5. After usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused respondent under Section 408 IPC instead of Section 380 IPC to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota framed the charges for the offence under Section 408 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got some documents exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.RC. were recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3 Kota through his judgment and order dated 9.10.1984 acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against him holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent. 8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal before this Court. 9. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota has not considered the statements of prosecution witness properly, especially the statement of PW. 6 Tilak Raj and PW. 7 Ashok Kumar and he has also not seen Ex. R 10 from the judicial lens. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.10.1984 is erroneous one and the same should be set-aside. 10. 6 Tilak Raj and PW. 7 Ashok Kumar and he has also not seen Ex. R 10 from the judicial lens. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.10.1984 is erroneous one and the same should be set-aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against them. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order in this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of D.W. 1 Mohan Lal and D.W. 2 who says that the other persons who belongs to the village of the accused respondent were staying with him at the time of occurrence and probably they have stolen the amount. The accused respondent has also disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer P.W. 9 Ram Niwas Tiwari and this fact was accepted by the P.W. 9 but he did not make his investigation in this direction. 12. The learned counsel for the accused has further drawn the attention of this court to certain circumstances on which the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent. According to him, the stolen money was not recovered from the accused respondent. He further contented that the keys of the store were used to remain with the accused respondent, such circumstances itself is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused respondent beyond all reasonable doubts. He relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jagan Nath v. State reported in AIR 1976 SC 1133 , in Para 4 Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under- "4. He relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jagan Nath v. State reported in AIR 1976 SC 1133 , in Para 4 Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under- "4. The High Court in the appeals before it had to consider the cases of six accused who were convicted by the trial Court and who by two separate appeals had appealed therefrom Unfortunately the High Court did not consider the cases of the accused separately, with the result that its judgment gives the impression that there was no evidence at all to connect the appellant withe misappropriation of the stock or the breach of trust in regard to the moneys belonging to the Society of which he was the President. In its judgment, the only circumstance which he High Court has referred to in regard to the appellant during the night. This circumstance by itself is not sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt." 13. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the record of the case. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota. I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Kota has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused respondent. 15. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. The court attention was also drawn upon a case which has been decided by the Apex Court of this Country in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : (2006)10 SCC p.145 , wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has held as under- "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by court below." 17. 98 : (2006)10 SCC p.145 , wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has held as under- "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by court below." 17. It may be stated herein that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against and order of a conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, high Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal Dated 9.10.1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.10.1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Kota. The accused respondent is on bail and need not to surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******