Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 167 (RAJ)

Rakesh Sharma v. Mahaveer

2009-01-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred instant revision petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.01.2003 (for short 'the trial court') whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324 read with section 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report on the basis of which FIR No. 1/94 was lodged against the respondents for the offence under sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences in the court concerned. 4. The trial court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, plea not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. Despite of several opportunities given to the prosecution, it had failed-to produce any of the prosecution witnesses as a result of which the evidence was closed by the trial court. ` 6. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. 7. The trial Court after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused respondents from all the offences vide judgment dated 10.01.2003. 8. The complainant petitioner aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.01.2003 passed by the trial Court, has preferred instant petition before this Court. 9. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available to me. 10. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, counsel appearing for the complainant petitioner submits that the trial court has committed an illegality in holding that the accused respondents were not guilty for the aforesaid offences. The trial court has failed to consider that without recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, statement of accused respondents cannot be recorded. Thus, impugned judgment dated 10.01.2003 passed by the trial Court be quashed and set-aside. 11. On the other hand Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State assisted by Mr. S.S. Sunda, counsel for accused respondents submit that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent for the afore-mentioned offences and it has not committed any illegality and irregularity in acquitting them by giving them benefit of doubt. 12. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006 (2) WLC (SC) Crl. 98 : SCC 2006 Vol. 12. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006 (2) WLC (SC) Crl. 98 : SCC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have 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." 13. 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 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. 14. 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 given 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. 15. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Dismissed. *******