Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1690 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Satyanarain

2008-07-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Raj.) (Hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 39/1996 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Satyanarain for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC and the accused respondent Shrawan for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the prosecution are that on 27.10.1995 complainant Gajjan Singh was going to his own field to take food-grain by ox-cart and in the way, he found accused Shrawan and Satyanarain and they after stopping the complainant started to quarrel regarding water. Immediately thereafter, the accused respondents started to give beating. Accused Satya Narain caused injury by gandasi on the right hand and accused Shrawan inflicted injury by iron rod and because of which injury blood started to ooze out from the person of injured and he fell-down. Thereafter, both the accused persons started to give beating to him. He further stated that this incident has been seen by witness Shakier and Gurcharan Singh. The accused persons gave beating to him with intention to kill him. 3. On the basis of this oral information, the Police registered an FIR against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 307/34 IPC. The Police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused-respondents for the offence under sections 307/34 IPC. 4. The learned trial Court discharged the accused respondents for the offence under section 307 IPC and read over the charges against the accused Satyanarain for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 IPC and against accused Shrawan for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC. 5. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 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 21.02.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from the charge framed against him. 8. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.02.2002 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 9. 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 21.02.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from the charge framed against him. 8. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.02.2002 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 statements 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. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 is erroneous one and is liable to 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 for the aforesaid offences. He submits that PW 2 Gurucharan, PW 3 Sattar Singh have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus have been declared hostile. He submits that PW 4 Lekhvendra Singh and PW 7 Gajjan Singh have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, he submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimonies. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be made. 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 21.02.2002 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. 13. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SC 2006 Vol. 13. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 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. 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. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 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 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 21.02.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Rajasthan) in criminal case No. 39/96.State Appeal Dismissed. *******