Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 909 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Reghunath

2008-03-31

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–This Criminal Appeal has come up for hearing after expiry of a period of more than 27 years from the date of occurrence i.e. 29th July, 1981. (2). The State of Rajasthan has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1990 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 60/1988 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149 IPC. (3). The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) which was converted into (Ex. P.2) lodged by one Ram Kumar Meena (PW. 4) at police station Todabhim, District Sawai Madhopur in which he alleged that on 28th July 1981 at about 10 a.m., when he along with Shiv Lal, Chimman, Mithya and Ghisya were constructing a Doll of grazing field of the village, one Chhanga Ram Neena came there and asked them not to do it. In reply, the complainant party said that they were constructing Doll (boundary wall) in the field to protect from cattle and other animals entering into their fields. Upon this, Chhanga threatened not to do so and went away from there. After a few minutes Chhanga along with Reghunath, Paima, Sarvajeet, Murli, Amar Singh and Reghuveer came there. Chhanga was armed with Kulhari, Reghunath was armed with a gun, Paima was having a Pharsa and others were having lathies with them. (4). First of all, Chhagan hit Chimman on his back by Kulhari, Paima inflicted injury on the hand of Shivlal by Pharsa and Reghunath fired his gun as Ghinsya set him down and escaped. The other persons were also caused injuries by their Lathies. (5). The villagers assembled at the site and the accused persons went away. The injured persons were taken away to the Todabhim Hospital where they were examined and treated for their injuries. (6). An FIR was lodged and investigation started. During the course of investigation, it was transferred to the CID (CB) which after investigation, submitted a challan against these six accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 324 & 324/149 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City who committed the case to Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge Karauli (Camp Hindaul City). The learned Addl. During the course of investigation, it was transferred to the CID (CB) which after investigation, submitted a challan against these six accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 324 & 324/149 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City who committed the case to Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge Karauli (Camp Hindaul City). The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli has framed charges against the accused Reghunath under Sections 147, 307, 326/149, 324/149, 323 and 323/149 IPC. Against the accused Sarvajeet, Amar Singh and Murli under Sections 147, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC. Against accused Reghuveer under Sections 147, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323, 323/149 IPC and against accused Paima under Sections 148, 307/149, 326, 324/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC. The charges were read over to the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. (7). During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence side produced one witness DW.1 Dr. Murari Lal and got exhibited 9 documents. (8). After hearing both the sides, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli vide his judgment dated 22nd August, 1990, acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges levelled against them. (9). Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 22.8.1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. (10). In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in mis-reading the evidence and drawing wrong inferences, as such the judgment deserves to be set-aside. He further contended that the trial Court itself in Para No. 15 held that the case was of free fight later against the provisions of law allowed the accused persons, benefit of private defence and committed grave illegality in acquitting the accused persons. He further contended that the trial Court has erred in not holding the accused persons guilty of making an unlawful assembly when there was clear evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they had come armed with and every-one of them had taken part in causing injuries with the various injured persons of the complainant party. He further contended that the trial Court has erred in not holding the accused persons guilty of making an unlawful assembly when there was clear evidence of the prosecution witnesses that they had come armed with and every-one of them had taken part in causing injuries with the various injured persons of the complainant party. He contended that Chhanga was a main person in this matter who has caused incised wound by kulhari upon Chimma (injured). He further pointed out that the other injuries are simple in nature by blunt weapon which comes under-Section 323 IPC. But Chhanga is a main person who has caused incised wound by sharp weapon upon Chimman. He further pointed out that the order dated 1.7.86 indicates that Chhanga Ram Meena has died and the proceedings against him were dropped. He further contended that all the witnesses have given evidence in favour of the prosecution. (11). On the other hand, the learned counsel for 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 respondents from the charges framed against them, thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. He has also drawn attention of this Court that the incised wound caused by Chhanga Ram Meena has died. (12). 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. (13). Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated22.8.90 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli and I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondents. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. (14). The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006 SC Vol 10 Page 136 wherein the Honble Apex Court held as under:- "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." (15). 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 trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with he 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. (16). In appeal, the 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 judges 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 passed by the court below. 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. (17). In view of the above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.8.1990, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli (Camp at Hindaun City).