Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1083 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Alam Chand

2008-04-22

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.1986 passed by. learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Special Criminal Case No. 15/1983, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947'). 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : On 2.10.1983 Tara Singh submitted a report Principal Reserve Centre, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur to this effect that Ajeet Singh purchased 12 Bigha land, the registry of which was made by the Tehsildar 4 months ago and for mutation he gave registry to the accused. The accused demanded Rs. 200/-. On this the Police caught the accused respondent red-handed. On the basis of this written report, the police registered a case for the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Act of 1947. 3. The learned trial Court read over the charges to the accused respondent. The accused respondent did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 5. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in defence two witnesses were got examined. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 10.9.1986 acquitted the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offence. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.1986 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of complainant. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.1986 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the PW-3 Doonga Ram, PW-4 Ramji Lal, PW-5 Sant Lal and PW-10 Daljeet Singh, are important witnesses of the prosecution, have not supported the case. of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the PW-3 Doonga Ram, PW-4 Ramji Lal, PW-5 Sant Lal and PW-10 Daljeet Singh, are important witnesses of the prosecution, have not supported the case. of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Statement of PW-2 Tara Singh has not been corroborated by any evidence. This witness has made improvements, omissions and contradictions in his testimony. Investigation in this case has not been fair and the statements of the prosecution Witnesses have been recorded after a long lapse of time. Pragan Singh is a material witness in the case despite that he was not produced by the prosecution in the case. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 10.9.1986 passed by the learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. 10. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case as also the Judgment referred to above. 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment 10.9.1986 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 12. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 : 2006 Cr.L.R. (SC) 519 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in pars 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 13. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight age and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; 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 passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 10.9.1986 passed by learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No. 15/1983.Appeal dismissed. *******