Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 111 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the judgment dated 18.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar in Sessions Case No. 2/2009, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 147, 436, 436/149, 379 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 25.12.2001, the complainant petitioner submitted a written report to the Police Station, Ranoli, District Sikar, which was registered as FIR No. 194/2001 for the offence under Sections 147, 436, 379 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused respondents before the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and later-on, it was transferred to the trial court for disposal. The trial court framed charges against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 436, 436/149, 379 IPC. The accused respondents denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 18.10.2010 acquitting the accused respondents. 3. Against the said judgment dated 18.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, the present criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with due process of law. He has further contended that the trial court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Nathu Ram, PW-2 Supa Devi, PW-3 Choti, PW-4 Mali Devi, PW-5 Poorn Singh, PW-6 Ram Kumar, PW-7 Babu Lal, PW-8 Ram Lal and PW-9 Prahlad Sahay. He has further contended that they have given the evidence, which proves the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the impugned judgment be set-aside . 5. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the accused respondents has defended the impugned judgment passed by the court below and stated the same to be just and proper. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the accused respondents has defended the impugned judgment passed by the court below and stated the same to be just and proper. 6. They have drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the court below, which is reproduced as under: " bl izdkj nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls lkfcr gS fd ?kVuk LFky dh tehu lqYrku vkSj ukuwjke ds 'kkeykrh] dCts dk'r vkSj [kkrsnkjh dh lehi gSA lqYrku }kjk xksfcUn ls mldh tehu [kjhnus ds dkj.k ukuwjke vkSj lqYrku ds chp esa fookn gksukA xksfoUnk ls jkedqekj iq= lqokyky vkfn Hkh tehu [kjhnuk pkgrs Fks bl ckr ls lqokyky ds iq= Hkh eqyfteku ls ukjkt FksA ekSds ij ukuwjke ds edku fjgk;'kh ?kj cus gq, ugha FksA iqfyl us vuqla/kku esa ?kj esa vkx yxuk ugha ik;k cfYd vfHk;kstu ds gh xokg ih0MCY;w0 1 us dgk fd ukuw vkfn us gh vkx yxkdj >wBk eqdnek cuk;k gSA bl izdkj iqfyl us ?kVuk ?kfVr gksuk ugha ekukA Jherh deyk ?kVuk esa 'kkfey gksuk lkfcr ugha gSA blfy;s eqyfteku }kjk [kstM+h dh ydM+h ys tkus ds laca/k esa xokgksa ds c;ku fo'oluh; ugha gSA iqfyl us Hkh [kstM+h dh ydM+h cjken ugha dh Fkh vkSj ?kVuk ?kfVr gksuk ugha ekuk FkkA vfHk;kstu ds fgrc) xokgksa us ukjktxh ds dkj.k c<+ p<+dj eqyfteku ds f[kykQ c;ku fn;s gS ftuds c;ku ljdkjh nLrkost vkSj ljdkjh xokgksa ds c;kuksa ds lkeus fdlh Hkh :i esa fo'oluh; ugha gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd eqyfteku ds fo:) vfHk;kstu i{k Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 147] 436] 436@149] 379 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k dk vkjksi lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA " 7. The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136 , in which their Lordships of Supreme court observed in para no. 26 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. Reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136 , in which their Lordships of Supreme court observed in para no. 26 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. 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 State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed." 8. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the court below, I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondents. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence 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 court below, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision filed by the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.Petition dismissed. *******