Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1694 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad

2008-07-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer (for short 'the learned trial Court') in original criminal case No. 222/1981, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent by giving him Benefit of doubt for the offence under section 3 R/P. (U.P) Act, 1996. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one complaint was submitted by the Railway Security Force Carriage Company. Ajmer under section 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1966 before the Court stating therein that, as per the works described, accused Jagdish was on leave on 14.11.1980 at 11:30 AM. He entered in the carriage work-shop and reached at Paint shop at line No. 1. There, he after removing 5 plates of aluminum in GS 32110 entered in wagon number G.S.30656. He was taking aluminum plates and he was caught redhanded. 3. A case No.7/80 was registered against the accused respondent. 4. Before charge, from the side of prosecution, statement of PW1 Gani Khan was recorded. 5. After hearing arguments on charge, the court framed charge against the accused respondent for the offence under section 3 R.P., (U.P) Act. The accused respondent did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 9 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.11.1998 acquitted the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offence. 9. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 11. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits 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 respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 11. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits 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 respondent. He submits that the plates which were recovered from the possession of the accused respondent, no mark of anything of railway was found and there is great contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses in this regard. He submits that no recovery has been made by the prosecution regarding of instrument by which plates of aluminum have been removed. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 17.11.1998 passed by the learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. 12. 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. 13. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 17.11.1998 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. 14. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- Umrao v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2006 (10) SCC Page 136 : (2006 Cri LJ 2798) 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-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. 16. 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, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 17.11.1998 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer in Original Criminal case No.222/1981. Appeal dismissed.