Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1614 (RAJ)

State of Rajashan v. Satyanarayan

2008-07-03

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.—Since the controversy involved in both the matters i.e. criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan as also criminal revision filed by complainant, involve common question of facts and law, hence both the matters are being decided by this common Judgment. (2). The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. and the complainant has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned Special Court (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court) in Sessions case No. 24/1994, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 326, 323 and 326/34 IPC. (3). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mohar Singh submitted a parcha-bayan to this effect that in the evening of 29.3.1992 while he was coming back to his house at around quarter to six, he saw that the accused respondents were abusing his wife. On this, on being asked, accused Narottam throw one stoe due to which he sustained injury on the back of his head. In the meanwhile, all the accused persons hold of his wife and started beatings. When he intervened in the scuffle accused Satyanarain inflicted a knife injury of which the he (complainant) sustained incised would on his left hand and accused Narottam inflicted an injury on his wifes head by an iron rod. (4). The police on the basis of this parcha-bayan, registered an FIR for the offence under Sections 324, 323, 336 and 341 IPC. (5). The police after usual investigation, submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 336 and 341 IPC before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate S.No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. (6). The learned trial Court read over the charges against accused Satyanarain for the offence under Sections 341, 326 and 323 IPC, against Narotam Sharma and Smt. Maya for the offence under sections 341, 326/34 and 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. (7). The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 6 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. (8). Thereafter the statement of the accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (9). They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. (7). The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 6 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. (8). Thereafter the statement of the accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (9). After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 4.5.2000 acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences. (10). Aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal and the complainant has preferred this criminal revision. (11). In this appeal & criminal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. (12). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal 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. He submits that the FIR has been lodged after a great delay and regarding delay, no explanation has been given by the complainant. He submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court dated 4.5.2000 need no interference of this Court. (13). 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. (14). Having gone through the impugned judgment 4.5.2000 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 respondents. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. Having gone through the impugned judgment 4.5.2000 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 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". (15). 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 them 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. (16). 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. (17). Accordingly, the State appeal as also criminal revision fail and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 4.5.2000 passed by learned Special Court (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court) in Sessions case No. 24/1994.