Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1802 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Abdul Naem Khan

2008-07-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kakeri. Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 404/2001 by which he has acquitted the accused respondent from the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 1PC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW.5-Rameshwar Lal submitted a written report Ex.P/4 in which he has stated that Yesterday on 24.07.2001 at about 10 AM my son Durga Lal and Lalit were coming from Supa to Jaliya by Suzuki Motorcycle when they reached near bichala Nala Jaliya Talab then a Maruti Car bearing No. RJ 01 6307 came from Kakeri which was driven by the accused-respondent with rash and negligently, hit to the Motorcycle, due to this accident Durga Lal and Lalit who were on the Motorcycle have fell down and received injuries. 3. Upon the said report, the police has registered the case under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and started the investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offence before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kakeri, Ajmer. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has framed the charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused-respondent which were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During trial the prosecution in support of its case produced 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.After hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kakeri, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 10.11.2003 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 10.11.2003 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 6. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the statement of PW. 2 Sambhu Singh, PW. 3 Ladu Ram, PW. 4 Lalit & PW. 5 Rameshwar Lal whose statements are corroborated from each other and the learned trial Court without appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent. 7. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the statement of PW. 2 Sambhu Singh, PW. 3 Ladu Ram, PW. 4 Lalit & PW. 5 Rameshwar Lal whose statements are corroborated from each other and the learned trial Court without appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Praveen Jain appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order 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 from the charges framed against him and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court in this appeal. He has further drawn the attention of this Court that the star witness of the prosecution witnesses PW.1 Suraj Karan has been declared hostile and the PW.5 Rameshwar Lal has also not supported the prosecution story and he made the statement in the Court that he has not seen the accident. He has further contended that PW. 3 Ladu Ram accepted in his cross-examination that he reached on the spot after accident and the statement of PW.4 Lalit has also contradictory from each other. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 8. 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. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 10.11.2003 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. 10. 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 respondent for the offence for which he has been charged 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 they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have no reason to dissent from 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. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.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. 298 : 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." 11. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of 15 the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kakeri, Ajmer. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bond stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******