Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1315 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Naval Kishore

2008-05-12

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.1995 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Cases, Baran in Sessions Case No. 185/94 by which he acquitted the accused respondent from the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Premchand has filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Mobile) Cases Atru, District Baran in which he has stated that before two years from today (7.1.92), he - has given Rs. 3,000/- to the accused respondent whenever he has demanded. Before one month, when he went from Pratapji Nagar for taking money from the accused, accused abused him and told following words "madarchod chamatte ke kahe ke paisa hain." He has filed the complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant Prem Chand under section 200 Cr.PC. and he has also recorded the statements of Manak Chand, Rifi Lal and Om Prakash on 18.7.1992 under section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has found the prima facie case under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and while taking the cognizance issued the - non-bailable warrant against the accused respondent and committed the case to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Baran. 3. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court has framed the charge against the accused respondent for the offence under section 3 (i) (x) of the Act, 1989 and the same was explained and read over to the accused respondent. He denied for the same and demanded for the trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as witnesses. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused respondent by his order dated 7.7.1995. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 7.7.1995, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. B.N. Sandu has contended that the learned trial court has not given the proper attention upon the statement of the prosecution witnesses. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 7.7.1995, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. B.N. Sandu has contended that the learned trial court has not given the proper attention upon the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has urged to this Court that the accused respondent has used the abusive language against the complainant which comes under section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Meena who is appearing on behalf of accused respondent has contended that the learned trial Court has rightly - appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter the accused respondent was acquitted and no interference is called for. He has contended that there is a dispute of Rs. 3,000/-. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW2 Rifi Lal, PW3 Prem Chand who are close friends of each other and so far as PW4 Manak Chand is concerned he is the real brother of the complainant. All the witnesses of prosecution are interested witnesses. No independent witness has been produced by the complainant and the statement of the prosecution witnesses are contrary from each other. No independent witnesses are available and no eye witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Neither circumstantial evidence nor medical evidence has support to the prosecution story. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 7.7.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, I find that the learned Special 1 Judge has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution against the accused respondent. My attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the accused respondent upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Umrao v. State of Haryana reported in 2006 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 2006 (10) SCC 136 , in which the Lordships of Hon'ble 1 Supreme Court has held 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." 10. 98 : 2006 (10) SCC 136 , in which the Lordships of Hon'ble 1 Supreme Court has held 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." 10. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment and order cannot be said to be erroneous one. 11. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for he has been charged and the learned Special Judge was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge as there appears to be reasonable and plausible reason in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Special Judge has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 12. 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 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, the 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 passed by the learned Special Judge and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.7.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.State Appeal Dismissed. *******