Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1452 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Radhey Shyam

2008-05-23

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Rajasthan) (for short `the learned trial Court) in criminal case No. 49/1998, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section for the offence under section 325 and 504 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. (2). Brief facts of the case are that on 21.8.1994 complainant Ishwar submitted a report to this effect that today near about 9.30 AM he went to Dhanmandi building to his father. Then his father told that Radhey Shyam upon not sending younger wife Pinki, left this place after causing unparliamentary language. When he stated about this fact, then he came with stick and fell down on the land. (3). The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR for the offence under Sections 307, 325 and 504 IPC. (4). The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent. The charge for the offence under sections 325 and 504 IPC was read over to the accused respondent on 7.10.1996, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. (5). The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. (6). Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. (7). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 3.4.2000 acquitted the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. (8). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. (9). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent without considering the material available on record. Lastly, he has submitted that learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has failed to consider the statements of PW3 Ishwar, PW. 5 Kaushalya, PW 6 Nathu Lal, PW.7 Narayan Dixit and PW. 9 Dr. O.P. Sharma. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. (10). 5 Kaushalya, PW 6 Nathu Lal, PW.7 Narayan Dixit and PW. 9 Dr. O.P. Sharma. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. (10). 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 giving benefit of doubt. He submits that PW.1 Om Prakash has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. He submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made great improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. He submits that cross cases are also pending in between both the parties. He submits that the instant matter is only of family dispute regarding not sending Pinki on the festival of `Raksha-bandhan. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by the learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. (11). 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. (12). Having gone through the impugned judgment 3.4.2000 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. (13). The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 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." (14). 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. 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. (15). 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 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. (16). Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Rajasthan) in criminal case No. 49/1998.