Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 14 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kr. Yogi v. State

2009-01-05

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
Judgment Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—The petitioner has preferred instant revision petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 5.7.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, Sikar (for short 'the appellate Court') in criminal appeal No. 06/2003 by which he quashed and set-aside the judgment dated 11.2.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Neem-ka-Thana (for short 'the trial Court') and acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 447, 323, 325 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.8.1998 an FIR No. 146/98 was lodged by the complainant at P.S. Patan for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 323 IPC. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence under sections 447, 323 and 325 IPC. 4. The trial Court after hearing read over the charges to the accused respondent, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 8 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 7. The trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 447, 323 and 325 IPC vide judgment dated 11.2.2003. 8. The accused respondent feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.2.2003 preferred a criminal appeal in the appellate Court. 9. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused respondent from all the offences vide judgment dated 5.7.2007. 10. The complainant petitioner aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5.7.2007 passed by the appellate Court, has preferred instant petition before this Court. 11. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. 12. Mr. J.K. Yogi, counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that the appellate Court has wrongly given benefit of doubt to the accused respondent. The appellate Court has failed to consider the statements of PW-l to PW8 except PW5. The appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the testimony of prosecution witness PW6 Dr. Ramavatar Sharma who has categorically asserted and corroborated all the injuries suffered on the person of injured Deena Nath. The appellate Court has failed to consider the statements of PW-l to PW8 except PW5. The appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the testimony of prosecution witness PW6 Dr. Ramavatar Sharma who has categorically asserted and corroborated all the injuries suffered on the person of injured Deena Nath. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 13. On the other hand, Mr. D.D. Sharma, Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. P.S. Sirohi, counsel for accused respondent submit that the appellate Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent for the aforementioned offences and it has not committed any [illegality and irregularity in acquitting them. 14. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & 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." 15. 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 acquitted. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. It may be stated that in revision against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in revision 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 appellate Court and this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.