Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 269 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-27

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the judgment dated 3.6.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur in Cr. Appeal No. 26/2010 (75/2010), whereby appeal filed by the accused respondents no. 2 to 6 has been allowed and the judgment dated 5.8.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, by which the accused respondents no. 2 to 6 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 324, 324/149, 323/149, 336 IPC and benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act had been granted to them, has been set-aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant against the accused respondent(s). After investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 143, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 336 and 308 IPC in the competent court. Thereafter the case was committed to the District Judge. The District Judge discharged the accused respondents for the offence under Section 308 IPC and the case was remitted to the Magistrate concerned for trial. Thereafter trial court framed charges against the accused respondent/s for the offence under Sections 148, 324, 324/149, 323/149, 336 IPC, 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/s were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court convicted the accused respondent/s vide for the aforesaid offences vide his impugned judgment dated 5.8.2010 and granted them the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act and fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed upon each of the accused respondent. Being aggrieved, the accused respondents filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, who vide judgment dated 3.6.2011 allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment dated 5.8.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate and acquitted the accused respondents, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this Cr. Revision was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that accused respondents have wrongly been acquitted by the court below. He has further contended that the the learned appellate court has erred in discarding the testimony of prosecution and its witnesses and has wrongly acquitted the Non petitioner nos. 3. Against the said judgment, this Cr. Revision was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that accused respondents have wrongly been acquitted by the court below. He has further contended that the the learned appellate court has erred in discarding the testimony of prosecution and its witnesses and has wrongly acquitted the Non petitioner nos. 2 to 6 from charges under Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149, 336 IPC. He has further contended that the learned appellate court has failed to consider that the injury report of injured Govind was also corroborated by the medical evidence and, hence the judgment of the court below be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned PP has contended that the appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents and passed a detailed judgment after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the Court below. 6. 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." 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 respondents and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP and also gone through the record of the case. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, I find that the learned appellate 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 appellate court and the Cr. Revision filed by the complainant-petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Cr. Revision filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. *******