Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1803 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Pappan @ Akhlesh

2008-07-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15.01.2004 passed by The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Kota in Sessions Case No. 760/2002 by which he has acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 379, 411 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2002 complainant Mohd. Saleem submitted a written report Ex.P/6 in which he has stated that on 26.08.2002 at about 11 PM in the night he parked his Motor Cycle bearing No. RJ 20 11 M 1147 in the front of his house but in the morning he saw that his Motor Cycle was not there where he has parked ultimately he lodged the First Information Report in the Police Station. 3. Upon the said report, the police has registered the case No. 123/2002 under Section 379 IPC and started the investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offence before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Kota. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has framed the charge for the offence under Sections 379, 411 IPC against the accused-respondents which were read over and explained to the accused-respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During trial the prosecution in support of his case a produced 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Kota vide its judgment dated 15.01.2004 acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence charged against them. 6. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 15.01.2004 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 7. 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 in proper manner. He has further contended that the accused respondents himself gave the number plate of the theft Motor Cycle to the Police but the learned trial court has erred in not believed on this fact. He has further contended that the accused respondents himself gave the number plate of the theft Motor Cycle to the Police but the learned trial court has erred in not believed on this fact. He has further contended that it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused respondents theft the Motor Cycle of the complainant but the learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents which is wrong and illegal, hence the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. H.K. Sharma appearing on behalf the accused-respondents has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended 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 respondents from the charges framed against them 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 no recovery witness has been produced before the Court and there is major contradictions in the Statements of PW. 3 Najakat Ali, PW. 4 Siraj Ahmad and PW. 6 Kalu Ram Meena. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the various paragraphs of the impugned judgment in which the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. 9. 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. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2004 so 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. 11. 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 he has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 11. 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 he has been charged 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 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 respondents.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 : 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." 12. 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 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. 13. 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 15.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Kota. The accused-respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bond stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******