Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1023 (RAJ)

Azam Ali Khan v. The State of Rajasthan

2013-05-17

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the judgment dated 17.7.2010 passed by Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 21/2008, whereby accused respondents Amjad Ali, Akbar Ali, Liyakat Ali, Mubarik Ali and Habib Ali have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 308, 149, 452 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant appellant submitted a written report at Police Station, Jalupura, Jaipur stating therein that on 16.12.2007 at about 2.00 in noon, he was cleaning his motor cycle in the chowk of his house, then Amjad Ali, Akbar, Arif, Imran, Liyakat Ali, Mubarak, Habib Ali etc. came in his hoome with swords, rods and lathi es in their hands and attacked on him. His mother Shahnaj, Alam Fahmida, Nararuddin, Omji and Om Prakash Dudi escaped him. On the basis of said written report, FIR No. 210/2007 was registered by the police for the offence under Sections 143, 451, 323, 341 and 324 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused respondents before the competent court for the offences under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 451 and 149 IPC and against accused Amjad Ali besides above offences, for the offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused respondents, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. In support of prosecution case, statement of PW-1 to PW-18 were recorded and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter the statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C . The learned trial court, after recording the statements and hearing the arguments of both the sides, acquitted the accused respondents from the alleged offences, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, criminal revision was preferred by the complainant, but on the application of complainant, it has been converted into Criminal Appeal and registered as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 272/2013. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has contended that accused respondents, armed with weapons, gave beating to the complainant, but the trial court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused respondents, whereas the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence available on record clearly prove the prosecution story. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has contended that accused respondents, armed with weapons, gave beating to the complainant, but the trial court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused respondents, whereas the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence available on record clearly prove the prosecution story. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW- 4 Azam Ali Khan, as also the statement of PW-17, Dr Kedar Gupta and contended that in view of the aforesaid statements, the judgment of the trial court be set-aside and accused respondents be convicted. 5. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State as also Mr. G.S. Sisodiya, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents have opposed the same. They have contended that the trial court, after due consideration of the evidence, has acquitted the accused respondents. They have further contended that all the injuries are simple in nature. The eye witnesses Om Prakash and Omji, as disclosed in the FIR, have not been produced in evidence. The other eye witness Fahmida has been declared hostile and there is a contradiction in the statement of other witnesses. Not only this, PW-10 namely Mohd. Rafiq has also been declared hostile. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. 7. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the complainant-appellant proved against the accused respondents. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the complainant-appellant has not been able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offences for which they had been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136 , in para no. 26 observed that "it is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 10. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by the complainant appellant is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******