Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1227 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ravinder Singh

2008-05-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26-2-1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the learned trial Court ') in Sessions case No. 72/1996, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 3(1) and (xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989 ). 2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W. 5 Jamna Ram submitted a written report Ex. P2 on 18-3-1996 at 5.00 p.m. at PS Pilani to this effect that he went in Johad for removing the bricks. In the morning his wife and his daughter namely; Santosh (P.W. 4) both went in the field of 'Sarsoen ' Rohitash for doing labour, where the wife of Rohitash, Smt. Patasi was also there. He after removing the bricks came to the house at (9.00 a. m. for taking breakfast. After some time his wife also came and she had to go at Mukaan. Near-about 9.30 a.m. his daughter (P.W. 4) came at home in weeping condition and told to him and his wife that when she was doing the 'Lawni ', Ravindra Singh (accused) came and immediately on coming he caught her tight and fell down on the land. He wanted to do wrong act with her. When she cried then Patasi and Ram Karan Chammar came there. Upon this he ran away leaving her and he torned her 'Jamfer ' from both the sides. 3. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR No. 59/96 for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. 4. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent. The charge was read over to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and 6 documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded. Alter conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-2-1997 acquitted the accused-respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 26-6-1997 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. P. C. was recorded. Alter conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-2-1997 acquitted the accused-respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 26-6-1997 of acquittal 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 the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses have improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26-2-1997 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. P.W. 1 Torasmaan and P.W. 8 Dharamveer, have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus have been declared hostile. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 26-2-1997 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. 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment 26-2-1997 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 respondent. 12. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court :- Umrao v. State of Haryana, SC 2006 Vol. 10 page 136 : (2006 Cri LJ 27981 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 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. 10 page 136 : (2006 Cri LJ 27981 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 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 by giving him benefit of doubt. 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 through 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 weightage 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 26-2-1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 72/1996. Appeal dismissed.