Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 223 (RAJ)

State v. Ramcharan

2008-01-25

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated October 30, 1984 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) in Case No. 23/83 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Ramcharan for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : That a First Information Report (Ex.P-10) was lodged by Mangu Singh (PW-14) Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sarol on December 8, 1982, in Police Station Sarol at about 10.15 P.M. in which he has stated that one Uday Lal (PW-13) Postmaster was admitted by the Villagers in an unconscious condition and he is having injury on the head. The SHO registered the case and sent Prabhu Dayal (PW-11) to hospital and he reported that there was a rumour in the market that Uday Lal injured has been beaten by some unknown person. 3. Upon the said information, the SHO has lodged the FIR No. 91/82 under Section 307 IPC. On December 20, 1982, the police arrested accused-respondent Ram Charan. On December 25, 1982, the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. of Uday Lal was recorded. 4. After investigation the police filed a challan on January 18, 1983 before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Aklera. On February 9, 1983 the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 5. The charges under Section 307 IPC were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated October 30, 1984 acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) dated October 30, 1984 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) dated October 30, 1984 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated October 30, 1984 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. He has also contended that learned trial judge has not considered the statements of Uday Lal (PW-13) and PW-9 (Dr. Rameshwar Vijay). 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) 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 Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.). 13. 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. Accordingly PW-1 Bansi Lal, PW-2 Gograj, PW-3 Parvati Bai, PW-4 Bhanwar Lal Constable, PW-5 Ram Pratap Constable, PW-6 Parmanand, PW-7 Chatraram and PW-8 Ram Gopal are the formal witnesses. PW-9 Rameshwar Vijay who has examined the injured Uday Lal on December 9, 1983, PW-10 Dr. Harimohan Gupta, PW-11 Prabhu Dayal, PW-12 Shrilal are the other prosecution witnesses. 14. Now, the court has to assess the evidence mainly of PW-13 Uday Lal (injured) who has stated in his statement which is recorded on August 9, 1984 by the trial judge that on December 8, 1982 one Ram Charan (accused-respondent) was present on the way where he has been put a lathi blow on the injured Uday Lal (PW-13). He further stated in his statement that thereafter he became unconscious and he came in sense after three days from the incident, and he disclosed the name of the accused-respondent on December 23, 1982 (after 15 days from the incident). He has further stated that he has no enmity with the accused-respondent. He further stated in his statement that thereafter he became unconscious and he came in sense after three days from the incident, and he disclosed the name of the accused-respondent on December 23, 1982 (after 15 days from the incident). He has further stated that he has no enmity with the accused-respondent. He has also stated that as soon as he came in sense, he disclosed the name of the accused-respondent before his relatives. But, learned counsel for the accused-respondent pointed out that no relative has produced by the prosecution. He has also contended that the injured Uday Lal (PW-13) has not disclosed this fact in his statements that Ram Charan (accused-respondent) has beaten to him. 15. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated October 30, 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 16. 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 have observed in para No. 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." 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 respondent for the offence for which he has been charged and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 18. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 18. 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 Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. 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 October 30, 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Raj.). The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******