Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1491 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Guru Pal Singh

2008-05-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal No. 265/2002 against the judgment dated 25.11.2000 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, Communal Riots Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 673/2000 (1698/1991) by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 323, 451 IPC. (2). In this case a S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2001 was also filed by the complainant-Prabhu Lal against the order of the aforesaid Judgment. (3). Hence, the criminal appeal No. 265/2002 and criminal revision petition No. 52/2001 are arising out from the common order and decided by this Court by a common judgment. (4). Brief facts of the case are that on 7.3.1991 at about 11 A.M. Prabhu Lal PW-2 lodged an First Information Report at police station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for an incident which had taken place on 7.3.1991 at about 6 A.M. It was stated that on the said date he was at House No. B-515, Malviya Nagar belonging to Smt. Raj Devi. Smt. Rajdevi who left him to look after the house as well as her son Vikram Singh. One Sardarji who disclosed his name Gurupal Singh, forcibly entered into the house and started fight with Vikram Singh. He sustained various injuries on his body. Gurupal Singh also broke the glass of the windows and turned out from the house. He informed to Vinod Kumar Meena on the telephone about the incident, who immediately reached on the spot. He knocked the door and asked the Sardraji (Gurupal Singh) to open the door of the house but he did not open the door of the house. (5). Upon the said report the police registered the case for the offence under Section 452, 323, 427, 451 IPC. After completion of the investigation the police has filed challan against the accused-respondent under Section 451 & 323 IPC. The accused respondent denied the charges framed against him and claimed for trial. (6). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (7). After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.11.2000 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. (8). (6). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (7). After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.11.2000 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. (8). Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25.11.2000, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal and the complainant has also filed a criminal revision petition. (9). The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State of Rajasthan and the learned Advocate Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of complainant in revision petition contended that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and without appreciating the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge framed against him. According to him the offences under Section 451, 323 IPC is clearly made out against the accused- respondent. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in not taking into consideration that the prosecution has been able to prove him the guilty of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt for convicting him under Section 451, 323 IPC. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the statement of prosecution witnesses PW.2 Prabhu Lal, PW.4 Vikaram Singh. (10). On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. S.S. Hasan appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution witnesses the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. He has further contended that there is major contradiction in the statements of prosecutions witnesses and no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. He has also contended the accused respondent facing mental agony and trial from last 17 years which is tentamounts to punishment. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the statements of DW-1 Om Prakash, DW- 2 Ashok Khurana, DW. 3 S.P. Jain & DW-4 Gurupal Singh himself, they examined as a defence witnesses and did not support the prosecution story. He has further contended that no explanations was given by the prosecution for lodging FIR after delay of five days. 3 S.P. Jain & DW-4 Gurupal Singh himself, they examined as a defence witnesses and did not support the prosecution story. He has further contended that no explanations was given by the prosecution for lodging FIR after delay of five days. He has further drawn attention of this Court that First Information Report (Ex. 4) has sent by the police station at about 10 A.M. on 8.3.1991 but it was received by the Court 11.3.1991 and no explanation was given by the prosecution regarding delay of four days. (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 dated 25.11.2000 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). 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 which who has been charged 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 they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. (14). The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Haryana & 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." (15). 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." (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 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, 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 trial Court and the appeal and revision petition are liable to be dismissed. (16). Accordingly, the appeal and revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and complainant fail and the same are hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, Communal Riots Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bond stand discharged.