Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1514 (RAJ)

State v. Prithavi Raj & Nawal Kishore

2008-05-29

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.—The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 8/99 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 5 Chitar Lal from all the charges levelled against him and acquitted the accused-respondents Ramkunwar, Ramcharan, Harinarain and Prithavi @ Nawal Kishore for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149 IPC but convicted them for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and released them for the period for which they have already confined in jail. (2). In brief, the facts of the case are as under:- Complainant Amar Lal (PW. 1) S/o Ghasilal B/c Mali R/o Jalawar lodged a written report (Ex. P. 3) in Police Station Nahar Ghar that today at 11.00 A.M. when he and his sons Hansraj (PW. 2) and Harivallabh (PW. 3) went to the jungle for bringing wood, at that time accused-respondents came there with Kulhari, parania, dhariya and lathies and they have all beated them with their weapons and they got many injuries on their body. (3). On this report policed filed a case No. 67/98 for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 147, 148 and 323 IPC and started investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj where the case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 307, 307/149, 323 and 324 IPC. (4). The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (5). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (6). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused-respondents also produced five defence witnesses namely DW-1 Inderlal, DW-2 Mahavir, DW-3 Arjunlal, DW-4 Dhulalal and DW-5 Dr. Mustak Ahgam Ansari. (7). (5). During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (6). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused-respondents also produced five defence witnesses namely DW-1 Inderlal, DW-2 Mahavir, DW-3 Arjunlal, DW-4 Dhulalal and DW-5 Dr. Mustak Ahgam Ansari. (7). After conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.1999 acquitted the accused-respondents as indicated hereinabove from the offence charged against them but convicted the accused-respondents No. 1 to 4 namely Prithviraj @ Nawal Kishore, Harinarayan, Ramcharan and Ramkunwar for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and released them for the period for which they have already undergone in jail. (8). Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 13.12.1999, 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 considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused- respondents and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.1999 is erroneous one and should be set aside. (10). He has further contended that the learned trial Court has not consider the statements of the prosecution witnesses by which they said that the accused respondents beated the Amar Lal and his sons with lathies, Parania, dharia and due to that they were injured. (11). He has further contended that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of PW.7 Dr. A.M. Ansari by which he said that when injured Amar Lal, Hansram and Harivallabh came to him they have a number of injuries on their body and the thumb of Hansraj was cut. (12). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order 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 respondents from the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court in this appeal. (13). (13). He has also contended that there is a major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the star witness of the prosecution namely PW.1 Amar Lal, PW. 4 Daulat Ram, PW. 5 Moolchand and PW. 6 Prahlad respectively have been declared hostile and the other defence witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. Lastly, he has also contended that the accused respondents is facing the trial from last several years which is tentamounts to punishment. (14). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case. (15). Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 13.12.1999 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. (16). 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 respondents for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 respondents. 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." (17). 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." (17). 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 this appeal is liable to be dismissed. (18). 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 13.12.1999 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Rajasthan). The accused-respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bond stand discharged.