Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1006 (RAJ)

Bhagirath Mal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-24

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant against the judgment dated 15.7.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 3/2012 (183/2006), whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(V) & 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 29.6.2006, the appellant Bhagirath Mal lodged a written report at Police Station, Singhana. On the basis of written report, FIR No. 154/2006 was lodged for the offence under Sections 143, 447, 336, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the accused persons. On completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused persons before the court below for the offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 (1) (v) & 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter the case was committed to the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Case, Jhunjhunu. The trial court framed charges under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1) (v) & 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused respondents, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 15.7.2013 acquitting the accused respondents for the aforesaid offence." 3. Against the said judgment of the trial court dated 15.7.2013, this Cr. Appeal was preferred. 4. I have learned counsel for the appellant, learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is manifest error on a point of law, consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence to ascertain whether accused has committed any offence or not. He has further contended that the trial court has made analysis of prosecution as a revenue case, presuming disputed area of the agriculture land between the parties, accused persons were given benefit of doubt and acquitted for the offence, which is not sustainable. He has further contended that the trial court has made analysis of prosecution as a revenue case, presuming disputed area of the agriculture land between the parties, accused persons were given benefit of doubt and acquitted for the offence, which is not sustainable. He has further contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that all the accused acted with the object of criminal trespass and wrongfully dispossessed over the appellant's land and interfered with the enjoyment of appellant's right over the land and intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate to the appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the alleged offences. 6. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that the trial court, after due appreciation of evidence, has passed the judgment, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the trial court. 7. The court's attention was also 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." 8. 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 respondents and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents for the alleged offence. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. 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 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. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by the complainant-appellant is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal filed by the complainant-appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused respondents.Appeal dismissed. *******