Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1059 (RAJ)

Assistant Engineer v. Jhabar Mal Meel

2014-04-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 8.12.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar in Special case No. 34/2007, by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "The complainant filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the accused respondent, whereupon FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused respondent in the concerned court. The trial court read-over the substance of accusation to the accused respondent, 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 respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment dated 8.12.2010 acquitting the accused respondent for the alleged offences, as indicated above." 3. Against the said judgment of the trial court dated 8.12.2010, this Cr. Appeal was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the court below, by which the accused respondent has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him, is erroneous, perverse, illegal and contrary to law. He has further contended that the court below has erred in not believing on the statements of prosecution witnesses and documents submitted from the prosecution side by which the offences against the accused respondent is well proved and acquitted the accused respondent from the charges levelled against them, which is illegal. Thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondent should be convicted for the alleged offence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned judgment. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in Supreme court 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 , in para 26, observed as under: "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." 7. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in Supreme court 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 , in para 26, observed as under: "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." 7. 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 respondent and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent for the alleged offences. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 appellant is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Cr. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused respondent.Appeal dismissed. *******