Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 191 (RAJ)

State v. Ratan Lal @ Lila Ram

2010-01-22

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court. 2. The Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu vide its impugned judgment and order-dated 15th of September 1980 in Sessions Case No. 14/1980 convicted and sentenced the accused-persons Jagdish and Ratanlal @ Leeluram as under - Accused Jagdish Prasad : under Section 324 IPC to 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Accused Ratanlal @ Leeluram : under Section 304 Part I IPC to two and a half year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to further undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. Both the accused-persons were charged with offence under Section 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, therefore, being aggrieved with the order of acquittal in respect of accused Ratanlal @ Leeluram from the offence under Section 302 IPC, the State has preferred this appeal to convert his conviction from the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC to 302 IPC and to sentence him accordingly. 4. The facts, in brief, are that on 18th of February 1980, a written report (Ex.P/3) was lodged by PW-3 Rajendra Singh Son of Shri Dev Singh Jat at Police Station Chirawa about so-called murder of his brother Ramsukh. The FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, who committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses including 3 eye-witnesses PW-3 Rajendra Singh, PW-4 Indraj and PW-5 Thadu Ram. During arguments before the trial court, the learned Public Prosecutor did not argue about any enmity in between both the parties as mentioned in para 15 of the impugned judgment. After appreciation of evidence of eye-witnesses, the trial court recorded a finding that there was no motive in the present case to commit murder of deceased Ramsukh by the accused party. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the State is that looking to the nature and number of injuries, the accused respondent should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC in place of 304 Part I IPC. 6. We have also examined the statements of three eye-witnesses PW-3 Rajendra Singh, PW-4 Indraj and PW-5 Thaduram and we are satisfied that they have not stated any enmity in between both the parties. 6. We have also examined the statements of three eye-witnesses PW-3 Rajendra Singh, PW-4 Indraj and PW-5 Thaduram and we are satisfied that they have not stated any enmity in between both the parties. It appears that a quarrel took place in between both parties all of a sudden during pre-marriage procession of accused Ratanlal. During that quarrel, the accused Ratanlal inflicted a blow at the back of the deceased and accused Jagdish also inflicted a blow on the neck by knife on the person of deceased. As per postmortem report and statement of doctor, the injury No. 8 found to be fatal, which was inflicted by accused- respondent Ratan Lal. The trial court in these circumstances acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Section 302 IPC and on the basis of their particular act convicted the accused-respondent under Section 304 Part I IPC and another accused Jagdish for the offence under Section 324 IPC to six months Simple Imprisonment. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and also the reasons assigned by the trial court, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same particularly when it is an order of acquittal. 8. It is a settled law that order of acquittal should not be interfered unless there are some compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It is also a settled law that even if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In this connection we may also refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bacchudas alias Balram & Ors., reported in 2007(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 357 : AIR 2007 SC 1236 , Para 9 of the judgment reproduced as under - "9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. 357 : AIR 2007 SC 1236 , Para 9 of the judgment reproduced as under - "9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 724 : 2003 (3) SCC 21 . The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 (2) SCC 793 ; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 (9) SCC 225 ; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (4) SCC 484 ; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 677 : 2003 (11) SCC 519 ; State of Punjab v. Karnali Singh, 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 479 : 2003 (11) SCC 271 ; State of Punjab v. Phola Singh, 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 618 : 2003 (11) SCC 58 ; Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 137 : 2003 (11) SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 479 : 2003 (11) SCC 271 ; State of Punjab v. Phola Singh, 2003 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 618 : 2003 (11) SCC 58 ; Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 137 : 2003 (11) SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 35 : 2004 (11) SCC 410 ." In view of the above discussions, we do not find any compelling or substantial reasons so as to interfere in the order of acquittal of accused-respondent from the offence under Section 302 IPC. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******