Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1613 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Gajanand

2008-07-03

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.—The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer (for short `the learned trial Court) in criminal case No. 2060/2000, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. (2). As per the case of the prosecution, brief facts of the case are that on 7.8.1995 at 3.30 AM, Durgaram, SI submitted a report to this effect that he along-with other staff at 2.30 AM, reached near G.C.A. chauraha for checking. Then Chowkidar stopped the jeep and told that the shutter of Dinesh Medical Store has been made up and some noise is coming inside of the shop. Then he gave a call near the shop, then no noise came. After hearing this, neighborer, Ishwari Prasad, Jagdish Sharma and auto driver Jaisingh came at the site and after that they called the persons who were sitting in the shop then Gajanand and Rakesh came inside the shop. When they asked from them, then the accused persons stated that they have entered in the shop with intention to commit theft. (3). The police on the basis of this report, registered an FIR No. 172/1995 for the offence under sections 457, 380 and 511 IPC and after investigation the Police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence u/Ss. 457 and 380 IPC. (4). The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (5). Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 7 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. (6). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (7). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.12.2001 acquitted the accused respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. (8). Aggrieved with the judgment dated 12.12.2001 of acquittal 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 considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. (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. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.2001 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. (10). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents 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 respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. He submits that PW5 Jagdish, PW6 Jaisingh and PW 7 Naresh have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He submits that the prosecution has not produced I.O. of the case. Lastly he submits that the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 12.12.2001 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-respondents and also gone through the record of the case. (12). Having gone through the impugned judgment 12.12.2001 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 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." (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 respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents by giving benefit of doubt to them. 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 respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents by giving benefit of doubt to them. 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 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 dated 12.12.2001 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 12.12.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate S.No. 3, Ajmer in criminal Case No. 2060/2000.