Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1665 (RAJ)

Bhura v. State of Rajasthan

2010-09-28

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. the complainant petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 16.12.1999 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Communal Riot Cases), Tonk (for short `the trial Court') passed in Sessions Case No. 56/1997, by which he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 148, 447, 325, 324, 323/149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner submitted a written report at P.S. Peeplu District Tonk to this effect that he is a resident of Chogai. Yesterday at about 7-7:30 AM he along with his brother went in the fields for doing kuli. After some-time Chhitar, Ram Chandra and his son Prahlad, Ramjeevan, Ram Pratap came from the village having sticks and parsi in their hands and started to give beating to him. when Gajanand, Kedar and Sitaram came to save them then these persons also started to give beating to them. He further mentioned in the written report that some dispute regarding land is going on in between them. Certain other facts were also mentioned in the written report. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report the police registered as FIR No. 59/2004 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 323 IPC. 4. The police after investigation submitted final report in the matter. 5. Against the final report submitted by the police before the learned trial Court, the complainant petitioner filed a protest petition before the trial Court. 6. The trial Court upon the protest petition took cognizance against the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 325, 324, 323, 447 and 149 IPC. 7. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges against the accused respondents No. 2 to 5, who denied the same, pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 13 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 9. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under sections 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced one witness and certain documents were exhibited. 10. The trial Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 16.12.1999. Hence this criminal revision petition before this Court. 11. 9. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under sections 313 Cr.P.C. recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced one witness and certain documents were exhibited. 10. The trial Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 16.12.1999. Hence this criminal revision petition before this Court. 11. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.1999 has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has failed to consider that on the disputed land the father of the complainant petitioner was in actual physical possession and after his death, such possession is continuing with the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged occurrence took place in the land of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.1999 be quashed and set aside the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 be convicted and sentenced for the offences they have been acquitted by the trial Court. 13. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Mukesh Saini, learned counsel for the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 have seriously opposed the afore-mentioned arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 from the aforesaid offences after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as also all other material which was made available to him and the trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in acquitting the accused respondents No. 2 to 5. Lastly Mr. Saini submits that the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 are facing trial since 21.6.1994 i.e. almost near about 16 years which tantamount to mental agony and harassment. They further submit that the trial Court in its para No. 15 has considered each and every aspect of the matter. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 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. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 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 for the offence for which he has been acquitted. I have no reason to dissent from the findings 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 trial Court and this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. The judgment dated 16.12.1999 passed by learned Judge, Special Court (Communal Riot Cases), Tonk passed in Sessions Case No. 56/1997 is confirmed.