Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 224 (RAJ)

State v. Sowaran Singh

2008-01-25

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated December 14, 1985 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) in Case No. 85/82 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Sowaran Singh for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : That a report (Ex.P-10) was submitted by Inspector, Post Office, Dholpur Sub-Division on September 2nd 1976 before the SHO Kotwali, Dholpur, in which it was alleged by complainant Molad Singh (PW-2) that accused-respondent Sowran Singh Postman has misappropriated the amount of the following money orders : (1) Kota TMO No. 3990 dated 21.5.74 for Rs. 10/- paid on 25.5.74 payable to Mohd. Ishaque Pachini Para Dholpur. (2) Kekin MO No. 2293 dated 27.7.74 for Rs. 5/- paid on 31.7.74 payable to Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Trivedi Bhava Sahib Ka Garden Dholpur. (3) Talgram MO No. 2738 dated 12.8.74 for Rs. 5/- paid on 17.8.74 payable to Smt. Shashi Kala C/o Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya Dholpur. (4) India Ki Chhaoni Grvalia-1 MO No. 4499 dated 24.7.74 for Rs. 3/- paid on 25.7.74 payable to Principal Govt. College Dholpur. 3. After that, the police registered the case and started the investigation. After usual investigation the police submitted a challan in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur has framed the charges against the accused-respondent under Sections 409 IPC. 5. The charges 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 13 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated December 14, 1985 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) dated December 14, 1985 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) dated December 14, 1985 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated December 14, 1985 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) in this appeal. 12. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there were 4 money orders which are related to Rs. 10 , 5, 5 and 3, the total amount is Rs. 23/- and according to the statements of PW-1 Jugal Kishore, PW-2 Molstabad Singh, PW-3 Kanhayalal, PW-4 Mohd. Ishak, PW-5 Mohd. Ismile, PW-6 Ramsharan, PW-7 Khan Chand, PW-8 Ramchandra, PW-9 Tota Ram who are the star witnesses of the prosecution, did not prove the basic ingredients of Section 409 IPC. The same has also been observed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.). The persons who sent the money order and who received the money order did not complain to any one. The aforesaid facts proved by PW-10 Braham Dutt Sharma and PW-1 Jugal Kishore. He has also contended that it was not disclosed by the complainant Molstabad Singh (PW-2) that he lodged a report to the Police Station Dholpur against which complainants-complaint. 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. 14. He has also contended that it was not disclosed by the complainant Molstabad Singh (PW-2) that he lodged a report to the Police Station Dholpur against which complainants-complaint. 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. 14. The report was lodged by PW-2 Molstabad Singh on 2nd September, 1976 for misappropriate of amount of 4 money orders which relates to different dates i.e. 21.5.74, 27.7.74, 12.8.74 and 24.7.74 and delay in lodging the FIR was not explained by the complainant Molhad Singh (PW-2) and this appeal has come up before this court on January 17, 2008 i.e. after the expiry of more than 31 years. 15. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated December 14, 1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 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 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." 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 respondents for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 18. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (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 December 14, 1985 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (Raj.). The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******