Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1033 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shivratan Singh

2009-04-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— The state of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.1998 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 81/1997, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 120B, 420, 468, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2)(d)(2) Anti Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Additional superintendent of Police, State Anti Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bharatpur against Teekam Chand Jain, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bharatpur, Shivratan Singh Dhankar, Assistant Engineer, Dharampal Jain, Junior Engineer and Hari Prakash Mistri, Irrigation Division, Bayana District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1988 in which it was specifically mentioned that the accused respondents being the government servant have misused the amount of Rs. 50,035/- by making wrong entry in the muster-roll Nos. 345, 346, 377, 378, 392 to 300, 401 to 414 and by making fraud, the government has taken a loss of government fund. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the trial Court. 3. The trial Court after hearing discharged the accused Teekam Chand Jain for the aforesaid offences and prima facie framed charges against the above-named three accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. 4. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 41 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 5. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused respondents in defence did not produce any witness. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment-dated 30.6.1998 acquitted the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offences. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.1998 of acquittal passed by trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the trial Court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondents. The trial Court has failed to consider that the accused respondents being the government servant misused the amount of Rs. 50,435/- by making wrong entry in the muster roll Nos. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the trial Court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondents. The trial Court has failed to consider that the accused respondents being the government servant misused the amount of Rs. 50,435/- by making wrong entry in the muster roll Nos. 345, 346, 377, 378, 392 to 300, 401 to 414 and by making fraud, the government has taken a loss of government fund. Despite opportunity given to the accused respondents, they have failed to produce the witnesses in defence. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.1998 passed by the trial Court is erroneous one and liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ashvin Garg and Mr. N.K. Singhal, counsel for the accused-respondents submit that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences. There is great contradictions, improvements and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal-dated 30.6.1998 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 10. In their support Mr. Garg and Mr. Singhal, counsel for the accused respondents specifically drawn attention of the Court to Para Nos. There is great contradictions, improvements and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal-dated 30.6.1998 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 10. In their support Mr. Garg and Mr. Singhal, counsel for the accused respondents specifically drawn attention of the Court to Para Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the Judgment dated 20.6.1998 passed by the trial Court, which runs as under: <span class=”Hfont”> 23- v-lk- 21 Jh e/kqj fcgkjh ekFkqj] v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds in ds vf/kdkjh Fks vkSj os ftEesnkj O;fDr gS] mudh tkap fjiksVZ dks lgt :i ls vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] fdUrq mudh tkap fjiksVZ ds i'pkr~ vUos"k.k vf/kdkj dk ;g drZO; Fkk fd mls gj fcUnq ij lk{; ,df=r dj U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= djuk pkfg, Fkk] tks ugha fd;k x;k gSA 24- U;k; n`"VkUr 1995 fdzfeuy ykW fjiksVZj ¼lq-dks-½ ds i`"B 446 ij izdkf'kr bUnzthrflag ,oa vU; cuke iatkc jkT; ,oa vU; ds ekeys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us ;g vfHkfuf.kZr fd;k gS fd ;fn eftLVªsV ds le{k vkbZMsafVQhds'ku vkQ fiztulZ ,DV dh /kkjk 5 ds varxZr vaxwBk fu'kkuh vFkok uewus ds gLrk{kj ugha fy, x, fla?kkfu;k cka/k ij ekg vizSy] ebZ o twu] 1991 esa fd, x, dk;Z ds nkSjku QthZ eLVj jksYl cukus] QthZ eLVj jksYl dks vly eLVj jksYl ds :i esa dke esa ysus ,oa QthZ eLVj jksy esa of.kZr Jfedksa dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fn[kkdj 50]035@& :i;s vuqfpr rjhds ls izkIr djus dk "kM;a= jpk FkkA vfHk;kstu ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us jkT; ljdkj dks /kks[kk nsdj 50]035@& :i;s dh jktdh; jkf'k izkIr dj vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gS vkSj jkT; ljdkj dks vkfFkZd gkfu rFkk Lo;a dks vuqfpr ykHk igqWpk;k gS] uk gh vfHk;kstu ;g lkfcr dj ik;k gS fd bUgksaus fla?kkfu;k cka/k ds eLVj jksYl dh dwVjpuk bl vk'k; ls dh fd ;g eLVj jksYl jkT; ljdkj dks /kks[kk nsus ds dke esa fy, tkosaxsA oLrqr% vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk eLVj jksYl gh dwVjfpr djuk lkfcr ugha gS] rks vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk bu eLVj jksYl dks dwVjfpr nLrkost tkurs gq,] QthZ tkurs gq, mUgsa vly nLrkost ds :i esa dke esa fy, tkus dk dksbZ iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA vfHk;kstu ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, eLVj jksYl esa Jfedksa ds uke dh QthZ izfof"V;ka dj 50]035@& :i;s dk vuqfpr :i ls xcu dj jktdks"k dks uqdlku igqWpk;k gks ,oa Lo;a dks vuqfpr ykHk igqWpkdj nqjkpj.k dk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gksA vr% eSa rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks mi;qZDr vkjksfir vijk/kksa esa funksZ"k ikrk gwW vkSj os nks"keqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA** 11. I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 30.6.1998 passed by the trial Court, I find that the trial Court has given cogent reasons by passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 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." 14. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted 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 the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage 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 passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 30.6.1998 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 81/1997.