Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1708 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Pratap S/o. Manohar

2008-07-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2002, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FT.), Kishangarh Bas, in Sessions Case No. 40/2001 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B 2. The brief facts of the case are that Hajari Lal Gurjar PW. 6 submitted a written report (Ex.P. 4) in police station Tapukada stating therein that his sister Kavita was married with accused No. 1 Pratap S/o. Manohar Gurjar in 1991. After 5 years of the marriage of his sister he performed her 'Gone'. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law started torture and cruelty by demanding dowry, upon which, both the parties were entered into amicable settlement. After some days, the complainant received a massage that her sister died. 3. Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case (FIR No. 227/2000) Ex.P. 5 under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC and investigation started. 15 After investigation, the police filed a challan under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) & Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tijara, Alwar who committed the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) Kishangarh Bas, who framed charges 498-A & 304-B IPC against the accused persons and the charges were read over and explained to them. 4. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court through its judgment and order dated 6.2.2002, acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal the learned trial court dated 6.2.2002, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. 7. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses properly. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned 35 trial court did not consider the report of P.W. 4 Mehrchand, P.W. 5 Rampal, PW.-6 Hajarilal, PW. 7 Sheonarain. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned 35 trial court did not consider the report of P.W. 4 Mehrchand, P.W. 5 Rampal, PW.-6 Hajarilal, PW. 7 Sheonarain. P.W. 9 Janki, P.W. 10 Sonwati, P.W. 11 Sukh Devi and P.W. 12 Pawan Kumar who were supported the prosecution story that in laws of deceased gave beating to her and given poison and due to this death caused. 9. He further contended that before the Panchayat accused Manohar father-in-law of the deceased Kavita accepted that we have killed Kavita. But the learned trial court failed to consider this fact and the judgment of learned trial court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Lastly he contended that in view of the above, the judgment and to order of acquittal passed by the court below be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents be punished for the offence as levelled against them. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents has urged this Court that the learned trial court has given proper attention to the statement given by the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and given cogent reason for acquitting the accused respondents after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT.) Kishangarh Bas. 12. He has drawn attention of this Court to the Statement of star witness P.W. 1 Ramveer, P.W. 2 Rameshwar, P.W. 3 Banshi and P.W. 7 Sheo Narain father of the deceased have been declared hostile who were only the material witnesses of the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 14. 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. 15. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 30 6.2.2002, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Kishangarh Bas, I find the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Kishangarh Bas, I find the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. 16. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 2006 SCC Vol. 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "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. 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 45 they have been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with 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. 18. In appeal, the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence so 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 judges 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 passed by the court below. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment 5 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In view of the above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.02.2002, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.), Kishangarh Bas. If the accused respondent are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******