Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 257 (RAJ)

Rohitash v. State of Rajasthan

2010-02-02

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the complainant petitioner has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 9.3.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, district Alwar (for short the appellate Court) in Appeal No. 189/1996 whereby he allowed the accused non-petitioner and acquitted him from the offence under Sections 467, 671 and 420 I.P.C. and reversed the judgment of conviction dated 26.7.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Tijara in criminal case No. 23/215/89. 2. In brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner Rohitash submitted a complaint with detailed facts in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the P.S. Tijara for investigation, where the police registered F.I.R. No. 108/1988 against the accused non petitioner for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406,471 I.P.C. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused respondent. 4. The trial Court after hearing, framed charges against the accused respondent, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 12 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 convicted and sentenced the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 26.7.1996. 8. The accused respondent being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.7.1996 preferred and appeal before the appellate Court. 9. The appellate Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondent from all the offences vide judgment dated 9.3.2000. 10. The complainant being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 9.3.2000 has preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court. 11. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellate Court while acquitting the accused non-petitioner has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also the material made available to him and erred in acquitting the accused non-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused non-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellate Court while acquitting the accused non-petitioner has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also the material made available to him and erred in acquitting the accused non-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused non-petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Lastly, he submits that the learned appellate Court while acquitting the accused non-petitioner has not considered Ex.P-9. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 9.3.2000 is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 13. Mr. Pradeep Shreemal, Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. Prashant Joshi, learned counsel for the accused non-petitioner submit that the appellate Court has acquitted the accused respondent from the aforesaid offences after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as also all other material which were made available to him and the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in acquitting the accused respondents which is very clear from the perusal of last para at page 3 of the judgment itself. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court need no interference of this Court. 14. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao v. State of Haryana & 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 accuse for the offence for which he has been acquitted. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. I have no reason to dissent from the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned 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 each 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 learned appellate Court and this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.In there suit, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision dismissed. *******