Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1764 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Ram

2008-07-24

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 17.6.2004 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 59/01, whereby it challenged the Judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Teekam Chand submitted a parcha-bayan on 10.8.89 to this effect that on 9.8.99 he went for walk to Kishangarh. Near-about 9:00 PM in the night he after proceeding from Madanganj Housing Colony was going towards Railway Phatak. One motor-cycle from Railway Phatak came with high speed and hit him from the side, the result of which he sustained injuries on his legs, head, chest etc. This mistake has occurred due to mistake of Mohan, who is owner of the motor-cycle. 3. The police on the basis of this parcha-bayan, registered an FIR No. 276/99 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and after investigation the Police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the afore-mentioned offences. 4. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 3 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter, the accused respondent voluntarily moved an application for accepting the guilt in the capacity of 'Lok Adalat'. The learned trial Court because of this stopped the evidence of prosecution and recorded the statement of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.6.2004 acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC but convicted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 279 IPC. 8. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.6.2004 of acquittal for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC 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. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. 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. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.6.2004 for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC is erroneous one and may be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent 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 respondent for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. He submits that the PW3 Surendra Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution and has thus been declared hostile. He submits that in this case the complainant has died, therefore, no offence under Sections 337 and 338 Cr.P.C. can he proved against the accused respondent. Lastly he submits that the most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 17.6.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court need no interference of this Court. 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 17.6.2004 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 respondent for the offence u/S 337 and 338 IPC. 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. 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 aforesaid offences for which they have been convicted (sic.) 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. 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 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. 16. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal against accused respondent for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC, dated 17.6.2004 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh in Criminal case No. 59/2001.State Appeal Dismissed. *******