Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1717 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Tej Singh

2008-07-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short the learned trial court') in regular criminal case No. 124/2000, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 392 and 342 IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, brief facts of the case are that Rajasthan Bank Maharaja College, Jaipur submitted a written report on 26.8.98 to this effect that today at about 2.05 PM two persons came in the bank and out of them one was wearing black color helmet. One person after taking katta from his shirt stated that this is bank robbery' all will remain silently, otherwise he will kill. The other person took black color revolver from the bag and also took khukri in his hand. He without saying anything came in the bank and near the cashier started to fill up the money. At that time one customer who has withdrawn Rs. 5000/- was standing outside the counter. The bank robber pushed him in the bank and gave him abusive language. He stated to be taken to red color telephone. The customer because of fear could not understand the same and gave abusive language. 3. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR No. 118/97 for the offence under section 392 IPC. 4. The police failed to arrest the accused respondents and in absence of accused respondents submitted challan against them. 5. Later-on SHO of P.S. Shipra Path, arrested the accused respondents in case No. 118/97. 6. The police thereafter submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 392 and 342 IPC. The charge was read over to the accused respondents for the offence under sections 392, 342 read with section 34 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. 8. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. The accused respondents in defence did not produce any witnesses. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.11.2000 acquitted the accused-respondents by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. 10. 8. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. The accused respondents in defence did not produce any witnesses. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.11.2000 acquitted the accused-respondents by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. 10. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.11.2000 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 11. 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 by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2000 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 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 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. He submits that PW 5 Jagdish Sharma, PW9 Mangal Sain and PW 10 Birdhi Chand Meena, have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus have been declared hostile. He submits that in this matter identification of the goods was not made. He submits that the recovery of telephone instrument and air pistol is doubtful. There is a great contradiction between the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses, the result of which the evidence of the prosecution is not trust-worthy. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned trial Court 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 29.11.2000 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. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SCC 2006 Vol. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SCC 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." 16. 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. 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. 17. 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. 18. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in regular criminal case No. 124/2000.State Appeal Dismissed. *******