Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1666 (RAJ)

Jagdish 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 23.2.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Alwar (for short `the trial Court' passed in Sessions Case No. 02/2001, by which he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Section 376/511 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner submitted a written report on 24.8.2000 at 3:00 PM at P.S. Reni District Alwar to this effect that today his wife went to take grass in the field. Vinod S/o Mool Chand (accused respondent No. 2) went behind her. When his wife reached in the filed, he caught hold her from back side and pulled her in the field. Upon noise he went from there. Thereafter, she narrated whole story to him. Certain other facts were also mentioned in the written report. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report the police registered an FIR No. 122/2000 for the offence under Sections 376/511 and 341 IPC. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondent No. 2 in the court concerned. 5. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges against the accused respondent No. 2, who denied the same, pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 9 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondent No. 2 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence the accused respondent No. 2 did not produce any evidence but certain documents were exhibited. 8. The trial Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 for the aforesaid offence vide judgment dated 23.2.2001. Hence this criminal revision petition before this Court. 9. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.2.2001 has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court has misread the evidence of PW.1 to PW. 8. From a bare perusal of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses it is clear that accused respondent No. 2 Vinod has committed rape forcibly with Smt. Shakuntala. The trial court has misread the evidence of PW.1 to PW. 8. From a bare perusal of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses it is clear that accused respondent No. 2 Vinod has committed rape forcibly with Smt. Shakuntala. From the medical evidence also it is clear that the accused respondent No.2 committed rape with the prosecutorix. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.2.2001 be quashed and set aside the accused respondent No.2 be convic-ted and sentenced for the offence he has been acquitted by the trial Court. 11. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the accused respondent No. 2 has seriously opposed the afore-mentioned arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 from the aforesaid offence 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 respondent No. 2. They submit that star witness of the prosecution PW.8 Buddha Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. They submits that the alleged incident has take place on 24.8.2000 i.e. almost near about 10 years since then the accused respondent No.2 is facing trial which tantamount to mental agony and harassment. They further submit that FIR in the instant case has been lodged after a great delay of 5 days for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution. Lastly, they submit that the trial court in its para No. 9 has considered each and every aspect of the matter. Thus, the impugned judg-ment of acquittal passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 12. 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." 13. 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." 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 for 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. 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 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. 15. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. The judgment dated 23.2.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Alwar passed in Sessions Case No. 02/2001 is confirmed.