Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1248 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shahjama @ Appu

2009-05-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2006 passed by Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Kota (for short 'the learned trial Court') in sessions case No. 36/2005, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 365, 366, 344, 346 and 376(1) IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.1.2005 at 5.45 PM complainant Raghunathan Acharayan submitted a written report at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota to this effect that his daughter went to the morning walk but she did not return. It was further mentioned in the written report that search of prosecutrix (sic) was also made from the relatives. She has been abducted by accused respondent. He further mentioned in the written report that his daughter took with her three golden rings, chain of golden, four bangles, jhumki of ears, payjeb of silver and Rs. 2-3 lacs in cash. 3. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR for the offences under Sections 365, 366, 344, 346 and 376(1) IPC. 4. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences in the court concerned. 5. The trial Court after hearing framed the charges against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 13 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. In defence the accused respondent produced as many as 4 witnesses. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.1.2006 acquitted the accused-respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt. 9. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2006 passed by trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner and erred in acquitting the accused respondent. The trial Court has also failed to consider the statement of PW2 Chitra. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner and erred in acquitting the accused respondent. The trial Court has also failed to consider the statement of PW2 Chitra. This witness in her statement has specifically stated that accused respondent caught hold of her hand on the point of knife and took her on motor-cycle. Thereafter he took her in Tata Sumo to Indore and there he committed the wrong. This witness also stated certain other important facts, which the trial court has failed to consider while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. The trial court has also failed to consider the statement of PW5 Rahis, who is eye-witness of the occurrence, totally proves case against the accused respondent. The trial court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2006 is erroneous one and be quashed and set aside. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted 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 has acquitted the accused respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt. Lastly, he submits that the trial Court has specifically dealt with in detail in para Nos. 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment itself. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2006 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 12. I have heard Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 13. Having gone through the impugned judgment 24.1.2006 passed by the trial Court, I find that the trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent.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 2003 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 20 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. 98 : SCC 2003 Vol.10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 20 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 respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. 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 conclusions 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 appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 24.1.2006 passed by Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Kota in sessions case No. 36/2005.Appeal Dismissed. *******